Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... as a pre-grant opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act 2005 as the notice of opposition was filed on december 14, 2004, i.e. prior to the coming into force of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 is again unsubstantiated by the prejudice, if any, caused to the ..... .2006. by then the patents (amendment) ordinance, 2004 had come into force amending the patents act, 1970 with effect from 01.01.2005 which was later replaced by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. it is interesting to note that specific instructions under para 7 of office instruction 1/2005 dated 14.01.2005 in view of patents (amendment) ordinance, 2004, were ..... any decision, order or direction of the controller. but this section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as further amended by the section 60 of the 2004 ordinance and as further amended by section 61 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 has yet not been brought into force even on the date of hearing by respondent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... later; (v) the period for making request for examination under section 11-b, of the applications filed before the 1st day of january, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11-b before the commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later. (2) (i) the period within which the controller shall refer the application ..... to be heard before exercising adversely to the applicant any discretion vested in the controller by or under this act. the amendment to the section 80 has been made in the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as given below:- amendment of section 80. in section 80 of the principal act, the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely:- provided that the party desiring a hearing makes .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... opportunity to be heard before exercising adversely to the applicant any discretion vested in the controller by or under this act. the amendment to the section 80 has been made by the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as given below:- 38. in section 80 of the principal act, the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely;- provided that the party desiring a hearing makes the ..... 1-12-2003, the application was allowed to proceed in the name of the claimant. the appellant filed a request for examination on 12.09.2005. the respondent after the examination issued the first examination report (fer) on 09.06.2006 and the last date for placing the application in order for grant was 09.06. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... beta form which is the most thermodynamically stable product. (ii) the invention is obvious for the reasons 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 of a known substance without having any significant improvement of efficacy. even the affidavit submitted on behalf of the ..... , 2003 with a view to fulfilling indias further obligations under the trips agreement. the third amendment to the patents act, 1970 was introduced through the patents (amendment) ordinance, 2004, w.e.f. 01.01.2005. the ordinance was later replaced by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) with retrospective effect from 01.01.2005 thus meeting the deadline of the transitional period of 10 years upto december 31, 2004 extending .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... substitute for the high court. 32. before the present trade marks act, 1999 and patents act, 1970 as amended came into force, the acts that were in existence was the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 and patent act, 1970 (prior to amendment) section 108 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 dealt with the procedure for application for rectification before a high ..... shall be filed and it goes without saying that orders will be passed for continuation of the proceedings. 34. section 58 of the indian patents act, 1970 provides for amending specification before the ipab and the board shall pass orders in any pending proceedings, if it thinks fit allowing the specification to be ..... granted on any application made or appeal filed. such a provision is not found here. in secretary minor irrigation and engineering vs. sahl ram arya and another (2005 (5) scc 521) the honble supreme court held that if a tribunal has no power to grant interim order on that ground it cannot be by passed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... be decided ignoring rule 23. 28. before the present trade marks act, 1999 and patents act, 1970 as amended came into force, the acts that were in existence was the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 and patent act, 1970 (prior to amendment). section 108 of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 dealt with the procedure for application for rectification before a ..... wide as the power of appeal. the power of review will not require detailed investigation into the matter. in kapra mazdoor exta union case, (air 2005 supreme court 1782) the supreme court held that cases where decision is rendered without notice to the opposite party or under mistaken impression that the notice had ..... scrutiny of the law. (xxii) in kapra mazdoor ekta union vs. management of m/s. birla cotton spinning and weaving mills ltd., and others (air 2005 supreme court 1782) the honble supreme court held that where a court or judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits, can review its order on merits .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... 24.01.06 under section 25(1) of the act. by then the patents (amendment) act, 2005 had come into force amending the patents act, 1970 with effect from 01.01.2005. section 25(1) under chater v of the patents act, 1970 deals with the opposition to the grant of patent. it is also to be noted that section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 states that for chapter xix of the principal ..... the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 22.03.2007, in an opposition to the patent application no. 85/del/95 by way of third party representation opposition under section 25 (1) of the patents act, 1970, [as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the act)] before the honble high court of delhi bearing no. fao 136/2007 and cm 5192/2007. the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... in ora/15/2010/pt/del. the facts of the case is that: 2. the original application is for revocation of the patent no. 196774 under the provisions of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. 3. the applicant herein filed a miscellaneous petition no. 33/2013 for taking on record 12 additional documents. the respondents filed ..... evidence. 12. in this case, the petitioner claims that these documents would show that the duty under section 8 of the patents act was breached by the respondent. after justice ayyangars report, when this act came into force, the law makers have made the failure to disclose the information required by section 8 as a ground for ..... application. 12. the observation made in para 12 of the impugned order as regards section 8 of the act was an error because of the judgement by the hon'ble delhi high court. except for us patent 221 documents, the other eleven documents are irrelevant and are not supported by pleadings. 13. the learned counsel .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... that the parties to a proceeding shall have an opportunity for review by a judicial authority against any official administrative decision. the counsel for the appellant also argued that the patents (amendment) act, 2005 brought in a dichotomy between the pre-grant and post-grant opposition for the first time by introducing the post-grant opposition after the grant of ..... proceedings, for there existed an appeal against the pre-grant opposition under section 116 of the act as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2002 before the grant of patent. the counsel argued that there has to be a remedy when there is a refusal of patent. the counsel argued that the act has conferred on the controller, namely the respondent here, the power to refuse the grant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
..... public interest . therefore, we have to understand the perspective from which the chapter of compulsory licence was introduced and is still there in the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. the ayyangar report is the document we refer to when a question of importance arises. it says, there is no uniformity in the economic ..... the territory of india. according to the appellant, attempting to construe local working in the sense of local manufacturing would be beyond the scope of the patents act. according to the learned senior counsel, the intent of the legislature was clear from the fact that the phrase, manufacture in india was deleted from ..... erstwhile section 90 of the patents act in the year 2002 which is now section 84(7) of the patents act thus, negating the requirement of local manufacture in order to make it consistent with article 27(1) of trips agreement .....
Tag this Judgment!