Patents Amendment Act 2005 Section 65 - Judgment Search Results

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

in the high court under section 116 of the indian patents act 1970 as amended by the patents amendment act 1999 enactment of the patents amendment act 2002 and the patents amendment act 2005 as the amended sections 116 and 117a were meaning of this act or is not patentable under this act d that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly the patents amendment act 2002 and the patents amendment act 2005 as the amended sections 116 and 117a were brought into section 27 section 28 section 51 section 54 section 57 section 60 section 61 section 63 sub section 3 of section

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

17 10 2006 5 proceedings commenced before the controller of patents in the year 2000 when the respondent sought a patent principal act as inserted by section 47 of the patents amendment act 2002 in sub section 2 for the words and the argument with reference to section 96 of the patents act which was deleted when some provisions of the patent amendment amendment act 2005 even pertaining to the amendment act of 2005 not all provisions thereof were simultaneously brought into force only so 510 e exercising power under sub section 2 of section 1 of the patents amendment act 2002 the central government

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479

without which there cannot be adjudication about alleged infringement the patents claimed by the appellant are common in use and in the systems and therefore after coming into force of the amendment by act no 38 of 2002 the same is no the systems have economic significance 17 section 47 of the act reads thus 47 grant of patents to be subject to time according to the plaintiff infringed the patent in december 2005 respondent no 1 did not oppose the grant or sealing 34 of the 1996 act shows that the provision of section 33 of 1940 act is repealed and re enacted in

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009AIRSCW376; AIR2009SC1147; 2008(4)AWC3839(SC); 2008BusLR879(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN197; LC2008(3)131; (2009)2MLJ548(SC); 2008(38)PTC1(SC); 2008(12)SCALE284; 2008(6)LHSC4364.

be treated as a request for examination of grant of patents under sub section 3 of section 11b of the act been sought indian patent act 1970 section 5 2 patent amendment act 2005 chapter iv a arijit pasayat lokeshwar singh panta has been deleted and in section 78 of the amending act it has been specifically made clear that all pending applications indian patent act 1970 section 5 2 patent amendment act 2005 chapter iv a arijit pasayat lokeshwar singh panta jj patent treated to be a claim for patents covered under sub section 2 of section 5 of the principal act and such

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... stages and finally by the patents amendment act 2005 section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act patents act 1970 between january 1 1995 and january 1 2005 the patents act 1970 underwent wide ranging ..... the patents act 1970 revocation of patents see sections 63 64 and 65 of the patents act 1970 and the multiple stages for opposition to the grant of patent see section 25 of the patents act .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... stages and finally by the patents amendment act 2005 section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act patents act 1970 between january 1 1995 and january 1 2005 the patents act 1970 underwent wide ranging changes ..... xvi working of patents compulsory licences and revocation in the patents act 1970 28 see sections 63 64 and 65 of the patents act 1970 29 see section 25 of the patents act 1970 30 4 .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... of prior publication as above iii not patentable under section 3 d of the patents act 1970 as amended by the patents amendment act 2005 the patent application claims only a new form ..... 2theta of 20o said peak having a relative line intensity of 65 i e the peak marked 5 in fig 2 3 7 the ..... page 389 and 364 respectively vol b iv iper pp 59 65 vol c appeal filed at the uspto and the decision thereon .....

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

court after the notification of section 117 a of the patents act it is plain now that since apl s appeal introduction of the remedy of a post grant opposition the amendment act 2005 also amended section 117a to provide an appeal an order by the controller under section 15 of the act which order is in any event appealable to the ipab of patent a second significant difference after the amendment of 2005 is that a pre grant opposition can be filed by 117a to provide an appeal against an order passed under section 25 4 by the controller on the post grant opposition

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

..... was substituted by the patents amendment act 2005 act 15 of 2085 with effect from 01 01 2005 prior to the said amendment section 2 m defined patent as patent means a patent granted under this act 29 the term invention ..... the patents act 1970 amended act 38 of 2002 with effect from 20 05 2803 by which a patentee is given a exclusive right to prevent third parties from using its patent and product 65 .....

Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.

Court : Mumbai

be prescribed rule 55 falling in chapter vi of the patents rules 2003 reads thus 55 opposition to the patent 1 patent amendment act 2005 hereinafter referred to as the said amendment a perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of court construing the pregrant and postgrant proceedings under the said act held in j mitra co pvt ltd v assistant controller writ petition 4 it is stated that on 01 02 2005 the respondent no 1 filed a patent application accompanied by invention by virtue of subsection 2 or subsection 3 of section 29 c that the invention so far as claimed in judgment in kihoto hollohan v zachillhu 1992 supp 2 scc 651 at paragraph99 page 707 of the report justice m n