Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: andhra pradesh Year: 2008 Page 1 of about 59 results (0.223 seconds)

Dec 08 2008 (HC)

Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and AMR Technology Inc. rep. by Its Power ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-08-2008

Reported in : 2009(1)ALT362

..... to be produced through this letter of request are relevant for deciding the main civil action before the court of new jersey. the suit of the petitioner herein is for patent infringement against the respondent. as rightly held in wooster products inc. v. magna tek inc. and ors. reported in : air1989delhi6 , this court has ample power to allow the petition.29 ..... the united states immediately upon fda approval. aventis and amr assert that defendants' conduct constitutes infringement under 35 u.s.c 271 of one or more of the claims in patents assigned to amr and licensed to aventis.12. the relevant portion and the crucial portion of the letter of request is in para 8, which specifies evidence to be obtained ..... which evidence is needed (article 3(c) of the convention) had been referred to. the same reads as under:the above-captioned matter is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the united states. title 35, united states code, sections 100 et seq., brought by plaintiffs aventis pharmaceuticals inc. ('aventis') and amr technology, inc. ('amr'). this action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 2008 (HC)

K. Ganna Reddy S/O K. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. the Government of Andhra P ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-22-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD485; 2008(5)ALT214

..... chemicals ltd.) : [1967]1scr898 .12. in cases where an issue is raised that the government's opinion has been formed in a manifestly arbitrary or perverse fashion without regard to patent, actual and undeniable facts, or that such opinion has been arrived at on the basis of irrelevant considerations or no material at all, or on materials so tenuous, flimsy, slender ..... .19. as we are satisfied that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to quashed on the ground that the 1st respondent had formed its opinion in a patently illegal manner and that it does not fulfill the statutory requirement of containing of a statement of reasons of the 1st respondent to remove the appellant, it is wholly unnecessary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2008 (HC)

Mekala Thimmaraju and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-26-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD726; 2008(6)ALT791

..... interest, the collector has no option except to order for its disposal. while the reason, namely, the speedy and natural decay of the commodity given by the district collectors is patent, a close analysis of the impugned orders by which they directed distribution of the seized commodities through public distribution system instead of selling the same in the public auction clearly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2008 (HC)

Bhupathi Varalamma Vs. Joint Director and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-24-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD676

..... permissible for the revisional authority to entertain a revision filed either pending appeal or bypassing the remedy of appeal. only in exceptional situations where the authority which passed the order patently lacked jurisdiction to pass order and to prevent abuse of power exercised by such an authority and miscarriage of justice being caused to the aggrieved party, that the revisional authority .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2008 (HC)

Retired Employees Association Vs. the Govt. of A.P. rep. by the Princi ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-13-2008

Reported in : 2008(4)ALD204; 2008(4)ALT302; (2009)ILLJ43AP

..... considering, prima facie, the merits of the dispute when it decides the question whether its power to make a reference should be exercised or not. if the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate government may refuse to make a reference. likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2008 (HC)

Kasaram Jayamma and anr. Vs. Jajala Lakshmamma and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-14-2008

Reported in : 2008(3)ALD657; 2008(3)ALT104

..... for the respondents contended that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned trial judge as confirmed by this court in the appeal, warrant no interference in this letters patent appeal.3. the law is well-settled that a property cannot be presumed to be the joint family property merely because of existence of joint family. the burden of proving ..... court and upholding the preliminary decree dated 16.3.1993.challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendants 4 and 5 under clause-15 of letters patent. during the pendency of this appeal, respondents 13 to 19 got themselves impleaded as party respondents. we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material ..... preliminary decree, the defendants 4 and 5 alone preferred a.s. no. 1243 of 1993 before this court which was dismissed by judgment dated 17.3.1997. hence, this letters patent appeal by the defendants 4 & 5.2. the respondents 6 to 8 herein are the defendants 1 to 3 and respondents 9 to 11 are the defendants 6 to 8 ..... g. rohini, j.1. this letters patent appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 17.3.1997 in a.s. no. 1243 of 1993, whereunder the judgment and preliminary decree for partition granted in o.s. no. ..... by the trial court as confirmed by the learned single judge on appeal is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity.in the result, this letters patent appeal is dismissed. no costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 31 2008 (HC)

E. Shankar Reddy S/O. E. Nagi Reddy, Inspector of Police Vs. P. Ramase ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-31-2008

Reported in : 2008(6)ALT738

..... laid down by the supreme court in nallammal's case (supra) and gopalakrishnan nair's case (supra), the government can change its stand as per the advice, unless it is patently illegal or immoral.for all the above reasons, we are of the view of that the tribunal was right in saying that the judgment rendered in writ petition no. 2120 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 2008 (HC)

G. Kishan Reddy and Five ors. Vs. the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Sup ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-18-2008

Reported in : 2008(2)ALD394; 2008(2)ALT162

..... decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or 'play in the joints' to the executive and the court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide. these principles are re- iterated by the supreme court in various subsequent judgments in premium granites (1994) 2 scc 691 (supra), centre for public interest litigation ..... the supreme court held as under:in the ultimate analysis, the mechanism of price fixation has necessarily to be left to the judgment of the executive and unless it is patent that there is hostile discrimination against a class of operators, the processual basis of price fixation has to be accepted to the generality of cases as valid.10. in rohtas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 2008 (HC)

Yelagani Papaiah Son of Shankaraiah and anr. Vs. the Joint Collector a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-12-2008

Reported in : 2009(2)ALT380

..... , when it is found that such court or authority has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction. in the present case, it is patent and manifest that the joint collector, ranga reddy district, acted far in excess of jurisdiction vested in him under section 9 of the act while dealing with the proceedings under .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2008 (HC)

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by Its Executive ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : May-14-2008

Reported in : 2008(5)ALD787; 2008(5)ALT87; 2009LC(AP)790

..... that the instant cases fall within the exceptions carved out by the supreme court for entertaining the writ petitions despite availability of an alternative remedy because the respondents by their patently illegal action are seeking to deny the petitioners their valuable right of using the power banked by them in total derogation of their rights flowing from the contracts saved by .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //