Court : Kolkata
Reported in : LC2009(2)323
..... it has a branch office in mumbai and the rules of business require the branch office to deal with a matter would not imply that the principal seat of the patent office was irrelevant. the petitioner emphasises that the considerations under article 226(1) have remained unchanged despite the introduction of clause (1a) to the article which was subsequently ..... pending. the argument is that since the relevant authority does not function within the territory over which this court exercises jurisdiction, the irrelevant fact that the controller general of patents has his seat in calcutta will not make the third respondent amenable to the writ of this court under article 226(1) of the constitution. the objector contends that ..... title is misleading. the objector says that the only relevant person or authority against whom a writ may issue is the third respondent (erroneously described as the assistant controller of patents and designs, kolkata) who has his office in mumbai. according to the fifth respondent, the first and second respondents (the controller general and the deputy controller, kolkata, respectively) ..... but does not admit the allegations in the petition. the respondent authorities are represented but have been parsimonious in expending sound bytes and have left the parties to the patent proceedings to make the arguments. the fifth respondent has questioned the propriety of the petitioner in bringing the matter before this court. the principal contesting respondent asserts that this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368
..... intended to have a dichotomy between 'pre-grant opposition' and 'post-grant opposition'. however, the legislature intended that there shall be only one statutory appeal against grant of patent. the legislature intended to obliterate appeal from 'pre-grant proceedings', which existed earlier. however, it was left to the executive to bring the enacted law into force vide notification. for ..... from any decision, order or direction of the controller, inter alia, under section 25(4) [which refers to the power of the controller to maintain, amend or revoke the patent].23. in the present case, the legislature intended to provide for two types of scrutiny followed by one statutory appeal to the appellate board against 'post-grant proceedings'. the legislature ..... under:section 117g. transfer of pending proceedings to appellate board.- all cases of appeals against any order or decision of the controller and all cases pertaining to revocation of patent other than on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any high court, shall be transferred to the appellate board from such date ..... not brought into force. the result is that although the legislature intended to provide for only one statutory appeal to the appellate board, by reason of section 61 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 not being brought into force till 2.4.07 a strange situation developed. the legislature intended to provide for only one statutory appeal to the appellate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)
..... of pending proceedings to appellate board.- all cases of appeals against any order or decision of the controller and all cases pertaining to revocation of patent other than on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any high court, shall be transferred to the ..... a second right of opposition was given at the post grant stage. further, no appeal was contemplated against an order passed by the controller of patents pertaining to a pre-grant opposition but against an order passed at the post grant opposition which right of opposition was restricted to a person interested ..... in the official gazette on 2.4.2007. vide notification no.so.510(e), exercising power under sub-section 2 of section 1 of the patents amendment act, 2002 the central government notified the remaining provisions of the amendment act of 2002 to come into force with effect from the date of ..... substituting certain words in sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 of section 25. however, pertaining to an opposition to an application for grant of a patent no amendment was incorporated in section 25; existing provisions whereof were retained as they were in the statute book. 11. vide section 47 of the amendment ..... 83 of the t.m. act, 1999?2. the question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated in the patents act, 1970 by the patents amendment act, 2002 notified on 25th june, 2002 but various provisions thereof brought into force firstly on 20.5.2003 and the remaining .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1982Guj250; (1982)2GLR14
..... in a proper proceeding, particularly when he expressed in clear and categorical terms to respondent no. 1 that he desired to eppose the grant of any patent to respondent no, 3 in regard to the aforesaid machinery.19. mr. shelat, the learned advocate could not satisfy us as to how the aforesaid ..... the petitioner-company.16. in the case before us, we are convinced beyond any doubt that on a plain reading of s. 25 of the patents act, 1970, a citizen is having a statutory legal right of lodging his objections and/or opposition within a period of four months from the date ..... to lodge its objections and opposition before the statutory office was very much subsisting within a period of 4 months as provided in s. 25 of the patents act, 1970, and to ventilate its grievance, the petitioner-company took out two proceedings, viz. (1) the petitioner-company filed the aforesaid first appeal in ..... and which also contained the application of the petitioner dt. feb. 15, 1980.11. on mar. 7, 1980, respondent no. 1, the controller of patents intirriated to the petitioner-company that the application of the petitioner-company cannot be entertained.12. it was under these circumstances that the petitioner-company had a genuine ..... on these f acts, there was no dispute before us as can be significantly noticed even from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the deputy controller of patents and designs on behalf of respondent no. 1.8. it appears, that the said application was not received by respondent no. x by feb. 20, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR630; LC2007(2)75
..... material of the organic product and causes quick deterioration. the petitioners' method of pad printing does not alter the material on which the message is printed. 11. the petitioners' patent is more temparory, less permanent, lighter and does not involve either writing with a pen, applying thermal pressure, or cutting the organic product resulting in a more temporary and less ..... any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals. accordingly under this section no patent can be granted inter alia for plants or for any biological processes for production or propagation of plants. 7. it has to be seen whether the petitioners claim is ..... the petitioners which includes their product claim as well as method claim (systems claim) and the consideration of their submissions. the order necessarily rejects the petitioners' application for patent on 5 main grounds; the other ancillary and wholly technical grounds which need not be considered in detail. 6. the rejection of the claim is essentially based on the fact ..... the second examination report (ser) which also the petitioners replied to and complied with. by virtue of said procedure the petitioners have applied for amendment to their application for their patent, but which need not be considered for the reasons set out hereinafter. 5. the impugned order dated 19 th april, 2006 shows the details of the claims filed by .....Tag this Judgment!
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.
..... application for the same invention claiming identical article or substance in a convention country on or after the ist day of january, 1995 and the patent and the approval to sell or distribute the article or substance on the basis of appropriate tests conducted on or after the ist day of january ..... single judge, the controller of patent and the union of india filed two appeals, while two others were preferred by a third party to the proceedings who wanted to be added ..... deleted. on june 9, 2005 the writ petitioners filed another writ application thereby challenging the order dated 28th december, 2004 passed by the controller of patent by which the prayer for the emr of the writ petitioners was rejected for the second time. challenging the correctness of order passed by the learned ..... the `emr'). on july 28, 2000 the examiner filed examination report as regards the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of emr. the controller of patent, however, by order dated 3rd may, 2002 refused the prayer of the writ petitioners for emr. being dissatisfied, two different writ applications were filed before ..... subject matter of challenge in this appeal. a learned single judge had set aside the order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the controller of patents and designs (in short the `controller') and remanded the matter to him for arriving at a fresh decision on the application of the writ .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1989Delhi249; 1989(1)ARBLR339(Delhi); 38(1989)DLT78
..... has not otherwise given any grounds, much less cogent, for not following the principles behind the grant of patents in those cases. learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that claim for 'process for generation of power from solid carbonized fuels' was refused ..... the controller that the process of 'removal of dust' and the 'process of purifying exhaust gases coming out of diesel engine' were registered as patent no. 133673 and 147324 respectively but in the instant case the controller has ignored the same on the plea of these being bad precedents. he ..... at this stage to refer to provisions of section 5 of the act which lays down : section 5. inventions where only methods or processes of manufacture patentable. in the case of inventions. (a) claiming substances intended for use, or capable of being used, as food or as medicine or drug, or ..... himself and has ignored the provisions of section 5 of the patents act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') while rejecting the claim of the appellant. i have been taken through the order and various ..... the appellant had cancelled earlier statements of claims and as such the learned/counsel for the appellant has limited his appeal to the rejection of patent claim in respect of the above reproduced statement of claims only. (2) learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the controller has misdirected .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2010(1)278
..... of patens rejected the application of yrdcl for grant of patents. the said order has been challenged in the present petition.41. this court heard the submissions of mr. sudhir chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr ..... .39. the petition is disposed of.wp (civil) no. 12006/200940. the petitioner m/s. yeda research & development co. limited (yrdcl.) has filed an application for grant of patents on 5th february 2003. the respondent natco pharma limited (npl.) filed a pre-grant opposition on 15th november 2007. by the impugned order dated 3rd march 2009 the assistant controller ..... legislature intended to have a dichotomy between 'pre- grant opposition' and 'post-grant opposition'. however, the legislature intended that there shall be only one statutory appeal against grant of patent. the legislature intended to obliterate appeal from 'pre-grant proceedings', which existed earlier. however, it was left to the executive to bring the enacted law into force vide notification. for ..... opponent an opportunity of being heard before deciding the case. therefore, at the pre- grant stage, prior to the amendment in 2005, the controller could either refuse the patent application or require the applicant to make amendments to the satisfaction of the controller and if such changes were not made as directed, he would refuse the application. therefore section .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
..... to have attempted to justify his order by filing a counter affidavit to this writ petition. the affidavit shows a rather biased attitude of the deponent who granted the patent to the fourth respondent. therefore, while setting aside the grant as above, we direct the second respondent to assign the consideration of the petitioner's pre-grant opposition ..... under:given the importance of the issues, the government undertook broad-based and extensive consultations involving different interest groups on aspects critical to the changes which were necessary in the patents act, 1970. these included country-wide interactive sessions with various interest groups, including scientists, academicians, economists, representatives of various industry sectors (such as pharmaceutical, biotech, and software), ..... .16. a perusal of the rules will show that on consideration of the representation from the objectors, if the controller is of the opinion that the application for patent shall be refused or the complete specification requires amendment, under rule 55(4) he shall give notice to the applicant to that effect along with the copy of ..... representation only when a request for examination of the application has been filed.(3) on consideration of the representation if the controller is of the opinion that application for patent shall be refused or the complete specification requires amendment, he shall give a notice to the application to that effect along with a copy of such representation.(4) .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1969Bom255; (1974)76BOMLR130
..... sold the said tablets under the name uni-tolbid or tolbutamide but claim that the said tablets had been manufactured by the application of the processes mentioned in another patent, being patent no. 64323 held by the haffkine institute of bombay which is owned by the present second defendant state, under a licence granted to them by the second defendants ..... statement itself shows that, in point of fact, it is the same; (2) that the defendants have been synthesising their drug by the process mentioned in the second defendants' patent no. 64323, which consists of the preparation of substituted benzensulphonyl ureas from the corresponding substituted benzenesulphonyl-thioureas by desulphurisation with hydrogen peroxide; (3) that the drug which is the ..... technical literature on the subject for the purpose of carrying them into effect. 'an embodiment' of the invention is, therefore, in my opinion, sufficiently described in the plaintiffs patent and that description is not unnecessarily difficult to follow, it being sufficient to enable the invention to be carried into effect 'without making further inventions'. as far as claim no ..... than brilliancy and the new discovery produced illuminating appliances which had other qualities, viz. rigidity, flexibility or durability. judged by these tests, the position is that the plaintiffs' patent in the present case cannot be attacked on the ground of want of utility, since it certainly gives a 'useful choice' in the matter of compounds with a blood .....Tag this Judgment!