Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 66 amendment of section 126 Court: trademark Page 1 of about 5 results (0.074 seconds)

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court : Trademark

..... applicant fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this appication was filed in india on my 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. cancer patients aid association., india, on september 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the p-isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this application was filed in india on july 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. natco pharma ltd., india, on may 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited

Court : Trademark

..... /mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition tinder section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. hetero drugs ltd., india, on august 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply ..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.13. in view of the above findings and all the circumstances of the case, i hereby refuse to proceed with the application for ..... for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application no. 1602/mas/1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. lakshmi kumaran & sridharan, new delhi on behalf of m/s.ranbaxy laboratories ltd., india on may 26 .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Trademark

..... new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment)act, 2005.12. the opponent said this application was filed in india on july 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority whereas switzerland was not ..... representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. gopakumar nair associates, mumbai on behalf of m/s. cipla ltd., mumbai on july 5, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar .....

Cadila Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Reported in : (2002)(25)PTC776Reg

..... the tm-16 by virtue of order dtd. 2.5.1997 passed by the hon'ble high court of gujarat. henceforth the name of the applicants company is amended to read as 'cadila healthcare ltd., zydus tower, satelite cross roads, sarkhej-gandhinagar highway, ahmedabad 380015'. shri shah thereafter drew my attention towards the flaws in ..... court while considering the interpretation of rule 3 of punjab and haryana high court rules requiring filing of copies of memorandum of appeal for valid presentation of letters patent appeal observed:- "we must always remember that procedural law is not to be tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction that procedural prescriptions are the hand ..... bearing trade mark neopeptine. the ld.counsel for the applicants argued that applicants mark neoplatin is a coined word hence distinctive. section 9(5) of the act provides that in determining whether the trade mark is distinctive or capable of distinguishing the goods the tribunal might have regard to the extent to which the trace .....