Court : Chennai
..... question through a proprietary concern by name arc biomechanical engineers, he cannot sustain the suit without making them a party; (y) that since titanium alloy is available only with government of india undertakings such as the first defendant, the plaintiff could not have had any access to the same, to develop a wide range of prosthesis as claimed by him; (z) that the process of ..... (b) that musculoskeletal tumours of the limb occur commonly in children, adolescents and in young people; (c) that with the advent of modern chemotherapy, combined with surgical procedures, a revolution in the management and survival rate of patients had gone up to 60% from a mere 20%; (d) that from 1988, dr.mayilvahanan natarajan, a co-patentee of the plaintiff had taken charge of limb salvation in ..... ". appearing in section 3(b) of the drugs act, 1940 and held that the definition is comprehensive enough to take in, not only medicines, but ..... total sales of knee joint cmps in terms of quantity was 57 in 2001-02, 81 in 2002-03, 91 in 2003-04, 89 in 2004-05 and 60 in 2005-06; (l) that the sales of knee joint cmp in terms of turn over was rs.21,19,400/- in 2001-02, rs.31,99,550/- in 2002-03, rs.38,02,450/- in 2003-04, rs.34,16,000/- in 2004-05 and rs.29,43,100/- in 2005-06; (m) that the plaintiff spent substantial amounts towards research and in reaching out the product; (n) that ..... by section 162(1) of the patents act, 1970, the indian patents and designs act, 1911 was ..... vs ivan e.john [1977 (1) scc379; .....
Tag this Judgment!