Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 78 repeal and saving Court: delhi Page 1 of about 418 results (0.097 seconds)

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

Court : Delhi

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

..... official gazette. 22. on the date when the instant appeals were filed, chapter xix of the principal act, i.e. the patents act, 1970 as amended vide amendment act of 1999 continued to be operative notwithstanding the enactment of the patent amendment act, 2002 and the patent amendment act, 2005 since section 47 of the amendment act of 2002 which replaced chapter xix was being brought into force.23. 2 notifications were published in the ..... for the respondent urged that the tribunals can hear an appeal only against orders passed under sub-section 4 of section 25 of the patent amendment act, 1970 as amended by the patent amendment act of 2002 read with the patent amendment act, 2005. counsel urged that the amended provisions came into force on 2.4.2007. counsel wondered as to how can a board hear an appeal against an order passed .....

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

..... fao no. 293/06 in the high court under section 116, as it stood on 19.10.06 under the patents (amendment) act, 1999. on that date, the amended section 117a, suggested by patents (amendment) act, 2005, was not brought into force. on 19.10.06 the old law prevailed under which an appeal lay before the high ..... 06 and fao no. 293/06. we have to decide the fate of these pending appeals. one more aspect needs to be mentioned. under the patents (amendment) act, 2005, appeal is provided to the appellate board against the order of the controller under section 25(4). however, that statutory appeal is maintainable only in ..... passed by the controller of patents (controller.) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 (patents act.).2. before discussing the facts of the individual cases the scheme of the patents act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of patents (amendment) act, 2005 (amendment act.) as well as the .....

Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited Vs ...

Court : Delhi

..... learned single judge has returned findings on the applicability of section 68 of the patents act, 1970, it would be necessary to examine the scope of section 68. we may notice that section 68 has been amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. a comparison of the said section prior to the amendment and post amendment would shed some light on the controversy in the present appeals. for the ..... purposes of comparison, section 68 pre and post amendment is extracted here in below: section 68 (pre amendment)section 68 (post amendment)68. assignments, etc. not to be valid .....

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)

..... that in terms of the second proviso to section 11-a(7) of the patents act 1970, introduced by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (effective from 1st january, 2005), in case of patent applications filed under section 5 (2) [which concerns a claim for patent of an invention for a substance itself intended for use, or capable of being used ..... , as medicine or drug] the rights of a patentee accrue only from the date of the grant of the patent ..... admit of a wide scope given the legislative intent in introducing the above definition by the amendment act, 2005. it appears that this was introduced in acknowledgement of the fact that a claim by an applicant for a patent anywhere in the world and the statements made therein would be relevant for the authority in .....

Nippon Steel Corporation Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

..... : (1) no application for a patent shall be examined unless the applicant or any other interested person makes a request in ..... the court to rewrite the time limits set out in the act and the rules.18. the above submissions have been considered. it is necessary to examine the scheme of section 11-b of the act as amended by the patents (amendment) act 2005 and the corresponding rule 24-b of the rules as amended by the patents (amendment) rules 2006 which read as under: "11-b request for examination .....

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. Vs.monsanto Technology Llc and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... of which are separately defined.45. ms. singh disputed that the subject patent was wrongly granted because of a potential overlap of protection under the pv act. it is argued that in the patent amendment act of 2005 the pre-existing section 5 of the patents act, vis- -vis inventions where only methods or processes of manufacture patentable stood repealed; the expression invention in section 2(1)(j) was ..... substituted. now an invention means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application . section 5 before the 2002 amendment stood thus:-" 5 .....

Chemtura Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)

..... translation where applicable, should be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this communication as provided under section 8(2) of the indian patents (amendment) act, 2002. 9. statement of claims should be prefaced by words we claim. 10. pages of complete specification should be renumbered serially at the bottom of the page as ..... statement was false since between 21st june 2001 when the form 3 was filed and october 19, 2005 when the aforementioned letter was written, the us patent authorities had issued a rejection letter of 26th july 2001 stating that they were not satisfied with the amendments made by the plaintiff to its claims. by june 12, 2002 the claims were ..... form 3 in india i.e. on 21st june 2001 and prior to the date of filing of reply i.e. on 19th october 2005 there were a series of developments in the us patent application. the examination report in the us is called as an office action. the final office action was prepared on 26th july 2001 whereby .....

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kesar Medicaments and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT198; 2008(102)DRJ106; LC2008(2)1; 2008(36)PTC568(Del)

..... appeal. while it is the plea of the plaintiff that appeals under section 117a of the said act can be filed only against orders under section 25 of the said act, it may be noticed that prior to the amendment of the said act vide the patents amendment act, 2005, to the provisions inter alias of section 117a(2), which came into force from 2.04.2007 ..... defendant no. 2 is one under section 25(1) of the said act and section 117a(2) of the said act provides for appeals to be filed before the appellate board only against orders under section 25(4) of the said act which are with regard to maintaining, amending or revoking a patent i.e., at the post grant stage. it is also stated ..... that defendant no. 2 has filed a fresh application on 20.11.2006 seeking stay of the patent granted in favor of the plaintiff and on 21.11.2006, .....

Avtar NaraIn Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 154(2008)DLT140

..... the law at the relevant time. at the relevant time neither section 100-a nor section 104(2) barred a letters patent appeal. the words used in section 100-a are not by way of abundant caution. by the amendment acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters ..... arose as to maintainability of the letters patent appeal in view of section 100a of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) the learned judges of the division bench were of the view that the reasons given by another division bench of this court in satish chander sabharwal and anr. v. state and ors. : 122(2005)dlt170 on the basis of which .....

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

..... . reliance in this regard is placed by the defendant on an expert's affidavit.44. learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the amendments to the act brought into force in 2005, for the first time, ushered a regime whereby product patent is permissible in respect of pharmaceuticals and drugs. parliament consciously enacted and added, to the pre-existing requirements of every claim, the ..... could possibly have been argued that the essence of patentability, in pharmaceuticals and chemicals, is inventive ingenuity, novelty and existence of industrial application or economic significance of the new product or process. however, the background of the amendments and the two stage change (2002 and 2005) brought about to the act cannot be overlooked. a sound canon of statutory interpretation is that all provisions .....