Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 78 repeal and saving Court: karnataka Page 1 of about 503 results (0.621 seconds)

K. Sathya Murthy Vs. the Secretary Ministry for Industry and Commerce ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ686; 2007(4)KCCRSN260; 2007(3)AIRKarR40.

..... at the chennai office.2. the affidavit, inter alia; discloses the significant changes that have been brought about in the patents act, 1970 by the amending act of 2005; that the present procedure for processing the applications is now streamlined comparable to similar processing procedures undertaken elsewhere in other developed ..... places on record an affidavit dated 19-4-2005, sworn to by sri mannargudy sundararaman venkataraman, assistant controller of patents and designs, patent office, chennai2. the affidavit inter alia, points out that sweeping changes have been brought about by the amendment act of 2005 to the parent patent act of 1970 and some major changes such as ..... omission of section 5 of the principal act, having taken place and changed statutory position substantially alters the grounds on which the persons .....

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

..... a process should be new and useful and that is also to be stated in describing the invention. section 5 of the 1970 act was omitted by the amendment act, 2005 with effect from 1st january 2005. section 5 restricted the grant of patents only to methods or process of manufacture. the definition of invention now includes product as well as a process. 45. section 3 ..... for a term of seven years from 20th april 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th april 2005. however, with the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the framing of the patent rules, 2003, the plaintiffs patent bearing no.186857 has been subsequently extended for a period of twenty years from 20th april 1998 which expires on 20th april 2018. the certificate bearing .....

Mrs. Laxmi Bai and Others Vs. Kamalaksha G. Nayak and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1994Kant174; ILR1993KAR1936; 1993(2)KarLJ419

..... shall be disposed of by such court in accordance with law as if such suits or proceedings concerned had been instituted or commenced in such court.'though the amendment act came into force in 1989 itself, neither the parties nor the court had noticed that the suit in question stood transferred to the munsiff's court and the ..... they had been originally filed, whereas in the present case, the suit stood automatically transferred to the munsiff court by virtue of section 4(1)(b) of the amendment act and therefore, the civil judge could not have exercised any jurisdiction to pass any order in this case. it is difficult to accept this contention for more than ..... suits or proceedings. intendment of section 4 is not to prevent the court where appeal, suit or proceeding is pending from passing any judicial order therein after the amendment act came into force. it may be noted that section 4(1)(b) states that the suits and proceedings pending before the court of civil judge shall stand transferred .....

All India Gaming Federation Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Shri Pavan Nanda Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Play Games 24x7 Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Head Digital Works Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Galactus Funware Technology Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnatka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Saroj Kumar Panigrahi Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....