Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 9 amendment of section 11 Page 2 of about 4,623 results (0.134 seconds)

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.

..... on january 1, 2005 the patent (amendment act), 2005 came into operation by which various amendments to the act were made and the chapter iv-a which provided the mode of adjudication of the claim of emr was totally ..... treated as a request for examination of grant of patents under sub-section (3) of section 11b of the ..... court, with effect from 1st january, 2005 there was no scope for further considering the question of emr as chapter iva of the act has been deleted and in section 78 of the amending act, it has been specifically made clear that all pending applications for grant of emr filed under chapter iv- a of the principal act which were pending on 1st january, 2005 should be treated to be a claim for patents covered under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the principal act and such application should be deemed to be ..... the learned single judge's view that the provisions of section 78 of the amendment act have no application to the proceedings which stood concluded before the appointed day appears to be the correct view governing the .....

Dr. (Miss) Snehlata Gupte Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... terms of the amendments introduced in section 25(1) of the act by way of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 with effect from 1st january 2005, the time period for filing a pre-grant opposition stood extended till the grant of the patent. ..... above scheme, the amendment in 2005 to section 25 of the act was apparently made with a view to extending the time period within which an opposition to the grant of patent had to be made ..... under section 25 of the pre-amended act, an opposition to the grant of patent had to be filed within four months from that ..... learned senior counsel appearing for lalit mahajan that after the amendment to the act in 2005, the time period for filing a pre-grant opposition may have been removed but a reasonable interpretation has to be given to the amended section 25 keeping in view the context. ..... scc 30 it is submitted that a purposive construction would have to be adopted and it has to be held that in terms of rule 55 (6) of the rules read with section 43 (1) of the act the patent is granted once an order to that effect is passed by the controller simultaneous with the rejection of the first set of pre-grant oppositions which are decided by the controller. ..... significant change brought about by the amendment to section 25 in 2005 is that the pre-grant representation (or opposition) against the grant of patent can be made by "any ..... after the amendment to the act and in particular to section 25 (1) with effect from 1st january 2005, a significant change has been brought .....

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

..... result, this writ petition is allowed, declaring that the impugned amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, void and unenforceable. ..... relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.52. ..... mr.sp.chockalingam, party-in-person for respondents : mr.s.udayakumar, scgsc o r d e r this writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking an order in the nature of writ of declaration, to declare the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patent act, 1970 by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.2. ..... filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. ..... the writ petition, the relief sought for is only to declare that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970 by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultravires and void.7. .....

M/S. Philips Electronics India Limited Vs. M/S. Asian Electronics Limi ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... thus on the date of hearing in any case appeal on decision under section 25 was available under section 116 (2) of the principal act for the reason that 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 not been brought into force though they continue to remain in the statute books. 13. ..... 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 no.2. ..... the counsel for the respondent 1 submitted the averment of the appellant that the respondent 2 ought not to have treated and decided the opposition proceedings 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. ..... the counsel for respondent1 submitted that the appellant has relied on the provisions of section 162(5) of the patents act, 1970, the general clauses act and paragraph 7 of the circular dated january 14, 2005 of the controller general of patents and designs in support of the contention that the opposition should have been decided under the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2002. .....

India Nippon Electricals Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited and Another

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... prior to the grant of patent, these opposition proceedings are not to be treated as coming under the category of pre-grant opposition by way of third party intervention opposition as provided under section 25(1) of the act, as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005, to be finally regarded as non appealable proceeding for the party who is aggrieved, when the hearing in respect ofopposition proceedings have been conducted and finalised after the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005 came into force. ..... amendment in 2005 a split in the opposition proceedings have been introduced, namely, a pre-grant opposition and post-grant opposition under section 25 of the patents act, 1970 (as amended by the patents amendment act, 2005 ..... raised the objection that this appeal is not admissible before this appellate board as the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is under section 25(1) of the act, and the registry considered this appeal as an appeal against third party intervention opposition under section 25(1) of the act, 1970, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005. ..... patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2005 there does not lie any appeal to the party aggrieved in the pre-grant opposition under section ..... impugned order ought not to be confused, as if, it is an order passed under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 (as amended by the amending act of 2005) consequent to an opposition by a third party intervention opponent. .....

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente vs.uoi & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... of the application or from the date of priority of the first mentioned application or within six months from the date of filing of the further application, whichever is later; (v) the period for making request for examination under section 11b, of the applications filed before the 1st day of january, 2005 shall be the period specified under the section 11b before the commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 or the period specified under these rules, whichever expires later. ..... by the petitioner and intervener, and if the intention of the rule making authority was to grant 48 months from the latter of the two, the rule making authority need not have disturbed the position as it existed in section 11b(1) prior to amendment by act 15 of 2005 with effect from 01.01.2005. ..... pertinently, section 135 which falls in chapter xxii of the act and deals with international arrangements, was also amended by act 15 of 2005 (w.e.f. ..... section 11-b(1), as its stood prior to amendment by act 15 of 2005 w.e.f. ..... the deferred examination system was introduced in the act by the patents (amendment) act, 2002. ..... on the aspect: which date is to be considered as the priority date , the amended provision appears to be similar to the one that existed in the act prior to the introduction of amendments vide amendment act 15 of 2005. ..... even prior to amendment by act 15 of 2005 (w.e.f. ..... . by the same amendment act by which sub- section (1) of section 11b was amended .....

Bayer Corporation vs.union of India & Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... it is urged that this is significant, given the background of the fact that the term "importing" was specifically included in section 107a of the act by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, without any mention of the word export" or "offering for sale". ..... eventually, the patents amendment act, 2005 which proposed the amendment in its present form, was enacted; it reads as follows: 107a: for the purposes of this act (a) any act of making, constructing, using selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law for the time being in force, in india or in a country other than india, that regulates the manufacture, construction, ..... he relies on the notes on clauses of the patents (amendment) act 2002 as well as the joint parliamentary committee report pertaining to the insertion of section 107a of the act. ..... the changes brought about by the 2005 amendment are: a) abolition of the three year period prior to patent expiry; b) addition that the act of selling had to be "solely related to the development and submission of data in law; and c) addition that the law referred in the section could be of india "or any country other than india ; d) going beyond the canadian law in that the expression "importing" and import were added in section 107a. .....

M/S Lek Pharmaceuticals D.D. Vs. the Assistant Controller of Patents a ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

..... or from the date of priority of the first mentioned application or within six months from the date of filing of the further application, whichever is 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. ..... amendment to the section 80 has been made in the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as given below:- amendment of section ..... but it is also to be noted that as per section 13(3) of the act which reads as under:- 13(3):- where a complete specification is amended under the provisions o f this act before the grant of a patent, the amended specification shall be examined and investigated in like manner as ..... the appellant argued that during the examination of the patent application, the applicant for patent is entitled to an opportunity of hearing under section 14 or under section 80 of the act or at least under rule 129 of the patent rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), should the respondent decide to take an adverse decision against the applicant for patent (namely the appellant herein). ..... to proceed with the application under section 15 of the act by a letter of communication dated 22.08.2007 signed by the examiner of patents for and on behalf of the controller of patents and designs being the respondent. .....

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

Court : Delhi

..... 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 ..... section 5 of the patents act was amended by the patents (amendments) act, 2002, inserted an explanation, stating that "chemical processes" include biochemical, biotechnical and micro-biological processes to ..... ), in compliance with the instruments and annexes of the general agreement on tariffs and trade (gatt), including the trade- related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips) agreement, india, inter alia, introduced the patents (amendment) act, 2002, in june 25, 2002 ..... . thus, the exclusion of transgenic plants and seeds propagated after hybridization from patentability under section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970, is congruent with the amendment of article 53(b) of the epc, wherein, patents cannot be granted in respect of plants or animals exclusively obtained by means of ..... section 2 (q) and section 5 of the patents act, 1970, before amendment to the act permitted only process patents and did not allow products of chemical processes to be fao (os) (comm) 86/2017 & 76/2017 page 33 of 60 ..... course of these amendments, section 3 (j) was also added in 2002 to the patents act, 1970 ..... to the legislative history of amendments made to the patents act in 2002 and 2005 and also contrasted them with enactment of the pv act .....

Novartis Ag and Anr Vs. Cipla Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... of the patent act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 ..... conducting the manufacturing activities in india as according to the defendant that the merely importation would still lead to monopoly situation which is the ground of the tribunal to interdict for a compulsory license under section 83 and 84 of patent act and upon which i cannot prematurely decide the same and perform the role of compulsory licensing tribunal at this stage without fact finding and evaluation of evidence and correctness of the stand of the parties ..... that merely because section 48 rights are subject to other provisions of the act and section 83 provides general principles which are applicable to working of the patented inventions which are applicable to exercise of the powers under chapter xvi would equally be applicable to the proceedings for infringement of the patent and/ or the counter claim challenging the validity of the patent which are governed by the distinct provisions under section 104 and section 107 of the patents act ..... that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not patentable under this act; (l) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was secretly used in india, otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section (3), before the priority date of the claim; (m) that the applicant for the patent has failed to disclose to the controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished information which in any material particular was .....