Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2009 Page 1 of about 34 results (0.040 seconds)

May 18 2009 (HC)

Tvs Motor Company Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : May-18-2009

Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)

..... para 39, the appellant has explained about the operation of three valve configuration in the internal combustion engine, the operation of which has been patented in patent no. 196636 dated 25.05.2000.73. besides the above, the set of photographs filed by the appellant in volume viii of the typed ..... subject matter has not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art;section 2(m) 'patent' means a patent for any invention granted under this act;(ii) section 3 falling under chapter-ii mentions as to what are all not inventions.(iii) section ..... sufficient detail the disadvantage of using a single spark plug, as opposed to using twin spark plugs located preferably diametrically to each other (us patent 4177783 too contains a similar arrangement). this is because of better-controlled ignition timing in the latter and lesser time taken for the flame to ..... characteristics of the product of the appellant in its 125 cc motor cycle called 'flame' having everything similar and identical to that of the patented product of the respondent except the three valve arrangement and the third valve being a cosmetic one, the allegation of infringement is fully established and ..... of an internal combustion engine with improved combustion capacity. by pointing out the same, the learned senior counsel contended that the teaching of the patent of the respondent's invention was a combination of twin plug configuration in a small bore engine with twin valve facility along with other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2009 (HC)

Vittal Mallya Scientific Research Foundation Represented by Its Chief ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-2009

Reported in : LC2010(1)3

..... the assistance from any reputed institutions.17. ultimately, in the suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff, they will have to establish infringement of his patent right. the court need not undertake the task of finding out as to how far there was an infringement by appointing an expert. the petitioner ..... clearly shows that he had unnecessarily insinuated the experts of the iit by referring to getting payments in terms of section 115(2) of the patents act, and it is clearly unwarranted. the attitude of the counsel by sending such correspondence to a court appointed expert, then in future, ..... before 29.06.2009.i) it is respectfully submitted that professor r. dhamodharan, the head of department of chemistry had to analyze all the patent and process information given by the plaintiff, the defendant and that available in the open literature along with samples and scrutinize/analyze the same for ..... nature of the manufacturing process involved and whether the defendant's claim that it was manufacturing the product using a different process from the six patented process of the plaintiff. it was clearly stated that the cost of the examination/analysis shall be borne by both the plaintiff and the ..... stocks, booklets and other materials including raw material, inputs, work in progress finished goods manufactured by the defendants in violation of plaintiff's process patents for double metal salt of hca and also for a direction to defendant to render true account of profits made by them on sale of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2009 (HC)

S. Ram Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of Finance, Department ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-04-2009

Reported in : (2009)6MLJ990

..... having effective and efficacious alternate remedy and the violation of principles of natural justice itself are in dispute and the factual controversy with regard to the infringement of the patent rights of the petitioner, i am of the view that these writ petitions filed challenging the impugned orders, without availing the alternate remedy provided under sections 128 ..... before the appropriate appellate authority.11. mr. t.r. senthilkumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the central board of excise & customs, submitted that whether the petitioner's patent right is infringed or not can be decided by the appellate authority and there is no extraordinary circumstance to file the writ petitions before this court, without availing the ..... act, 2005, and thereafter appeal would lie to the supreme court. insofar as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned it is contended that even if the petitioner has registered his patent before the commissioner of customs, chennai airport & air cargo, chennai-27, orders having been passed by the respondents at new delhi and mumbai, petitioner cannot challenge the ..... these writ petitions viz., assistant commissioners of customs/commissioner of customs have no technical expertise and they sought for written submissions clarifying the technical aspect of the petitioner's patent. the petitioner also submitted written submissions.(m) the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the above written submissions, the second respondent held that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 2009 (HC)

C.V. Karunakaran Vs. the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-27-2009

Reported in : 2009(171)LC254(Madras); 2010(249)ELT324(Mad)

..... ;(g) procedure for assessment and payment of duty;(h) examination of merchandise at the customs stations;(i) provisions of the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958 (43 of 1958), the patents act, 1970 (39 of 1970) and the copy rights act, 1957 (14 of 1957).(j) prohibitions on import and export;(k) bonding procedure and clearance from bond;(l) re-importation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2009 (HC)

Scanwell Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Blaiklock Compass World Trans ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-15-2009

Reported in : [2010]153CompCas491(Mad)

..... order under challenge as such affects the valuable rights of the appellant, it has to be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. it can be well stated that the order under challenge is appealable. this court is of the considered opinion that the appellant can well maintain ..... clause (d) and is appealable, the serious question that arises is whether or not the order first mentioned is a judgment within the meaning of letters patent. the fact, however, remains that the order setting aside the ex parte decree puts the defendant to a great advantage and works serious injustice to the ..... suit. thus, such an order passed by the trial judge would not amount to a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent but will be purely an interlocutory order.similarly, suppose the trial judge passes an order setting aside an ex parte decree against the defendant, which ..... clauses (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. there may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by order 43, rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings ..... has vitally affected the valuable rights of the appellant, and hence it has got to be treated as a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent, and thus the appeals are well maintainable.7. in order to strengthen his contentions, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the apex court reported .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2009 (HC)

S. Paul Raj Vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited Represented by Its M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-11-2009

Reported in : LC2010(1)37

..... balance of convenience was in his favour for the grant of an interim order.20. it is not the claim of the applicant that he has a patent for the invention made by him. when a particular concept is in public domain and there is no novelty about the same and the respondents having ..... therein. therefore whether it is a smartcard or epassport, the applicant cannot claim that it was his invention or that he has a prima facie case for patent of such an idea. similarly, in the various correspondence which the applicant had with the respondents, nothing to indicate that the respondents have stolen the idea of ..... applicant. he declined the same as he had to clear the papers in his qualifying examinations. it was only with a view to snatch the applicant's patent of his invention, the respondents had offered him an employment that too for a pittance.9. it was stated that the respondents changed their stand especially on ..... will not be misused if such traveller documents are put in use. therefore, the applicant claimed that the invention of such concept is in terms of patent act as it was a novel concept and it had not been put to use so far.7. it was stated that he spent 20 months in ..... similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention/work 'flyguard'.3. the second application is for an identical prayer for infringing of the patent for the invention made by the applicant/plaintiff.4. the suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff for the very same prayers and also to direct the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (HC)

Bsa-regal Group Ltd. Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd. Rep. by Its Vi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-14-2009

Reported in : LC2009(1)25

..... gain. this is a special provision found in the relevant statute viz., trade marks act, 1999 to confer jurisdiction on the court. the territorial jurisdiction as contemplated under the letters patent act have been given a go-by under the aforesaid section 134(2) of the trade marks act, 1999. the plaintiff has established before the court that it carries on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2009 (HC)

Express Newspapers Limited Rep. by Its Chairperson Mrs. Saroj Goenka V ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-17-2009

Reported in : (2010)228CTR(Mad)405; [2010]321ITR12(Mad); [2010]186TAXMAN111(Mad)

..... not expressing any opinion, which can only be rectified or modified or set aside in the procedure known to law, but not in a petition under section 254(2). a patent mistake and a self evident error, which strikes one on mere looking at it, which does not require elaborated discussion or argument to establish can only be rectified under section ..... possible for a party to take further chance of re-arguing the appeal already decided. what can be rectified under section 254(2) is a mistake which is apparent and patent. the mistake has to be such for which no elaborate reasons or enquiry is necessary. where two opinions are possible then it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent ..... of the act have been considered by catena of decisions of the apex court and other high courts. the uniform opinion of the courts of superior jurisdiction is that a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2009 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Saravana Constructions Private Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-10-2009

Reported in : AIR2010Mad6

..... that section 20 is specifically excluded, the principles of section 20 cannot be made applicable or be attracted when a corporation is being sued under the letters patent. the judgment of this court in sarguja transport service v. state : (1987) 1 scc 5 : air 1987 sc 88 cannot apply for the following ..... 521 : 2006 air scw 5130 wherein it is held as under:the principles of section 20 cannot be made applicable to clause 12 of the letters patent since the cpc itself by section 120 specifically excludes the applicability of section 20 of the cpc to chartered high courts. it is submitted that when ..... courts, and there is clearly a difference between the scope of the letters patent and the code of civil procedure and the same is candidly observable upon a plain reading of section 120 of the code of civil procedure.26 ..... of its original jurisdiction, namely, sections 16, 17 and 20.24. but, by virtue of the powers conferred under clause 12 of the letters patent a suit may be filed before this court in the following circumstances:clause 12. original jurisdiction as to suits.- and we do further ordain that the ..... rupees.(emphasis supplied)25. thus, it is evident on a reading of the above provisions that the letters patent and code of civil procedure operate in separate fields i.e. the letters patent specifically confers original civil jurisdiction on high courts and the code of civil procedure confers jurisdiction on all other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 2009 (HC)

M. Sudakar Vs. the District Registrar (Societies) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-03-2009

Reported in : (2009)8MLJ1523

..... relief prayed for has become infructuous. nevertheless having regard to the fact that resolution no. 7 dated 07.01.2007 debarring the petitioner for a period of 10 years is patently illegal, the fact that the resolution has been filed on 05.12.2008 will not have any legal sanction and the petitioner continues to be the member of the trust ..... trust to debar any person from holding any post, the resolution passed on 07.01.2007 debarring the petitioner from holding any post for a period of 10 years is patently illegal and therefore, even though the resolution has been registered by the district registrar, the resolution has no legal sanction and it is not legal.23. therefore, in my opinion ..... , though the act of registering the resolution is ministerial one, this court has got power to mould the relief, when the resolution no. 7 passed on 07.01.2007 is patently against the provisions of the act and bye-laws of the trust.20. as per the section 53 of the act, the bye-laws of the society in so far .....

Tag this Judgment!

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