Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: competition commission of india cci Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.013 seconds)

Mar 05 2013 (TRI)

Manoj Hirasingh Pardeshif Vs. Gilead Sciences Inc., Usa

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Mar-05-2013

..... million and experienced a growth of 13.4% only in arv sales. thus, it can be easily stated that the market for the ops patented drugs being manufactured on license basis was too small to have appreciable adverse effect on the competition. 23. the arv drugs market had been growing ..... pepfar) and clinton foundation, bill and melinda gate foundation came together. with the intervention of these organizations and due to intervention of medicine patent pool, the companies having patents over the hiv treatment medicines were compelled to share their technology and to reduce the price. cipla had taken the lead and announced in ..... mpp for tripartite agreement. the payment of royalty where there was no product patent in india on the drugs was alleged to be unreasonable. n. the license agreements also restricted the use of drugs only for hiv and ..... of improvements to indian pharmaceutical companies. m. the license agreements provided that royalty be paid and continued to be paid even though there was no patent granted on the drugs. the royalty was to be paid by indian pharmaceutical companies to the op and it would pay a fixed amount to ..... appendix neither stated that the application was with respect to a process or a product or a divisional application nor did it state that the product patent application was rejected. 9. the informant pleaded the following three types of agreements were in contravention of the provisions of the act: a. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2013 (TRI)

Surinder Singh Barmi Vs. Ipl and Another

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Feb-08-2013

..... ) dated 28.12.2009 in relation to the income tax assessment order 2008-09, bcci submitted that the said order is based on incorrect principles of taxation laws and is patently erroneous. as per bcci, the said order had been impugned by bcci by filing an appeal which is pending adjudication. therefore, as per bcci, reliance on such order by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2013 (TRI)

M/S Oracle Drugs and Others Vs. Secretary, Department of Health and Fa ...

Court : Competition Commission of India CCI

Decided on : Jul-01-2013

order under section 26(2) of the competition act, 2002 the informants are medicine shop owners operating within the different premises of public health facilities in the state of odisha. the op1 is the secretary, department of health and family welfare, government of odisha and the op2 is the director, health and family welfare, government of odisha. 2. the informants are owners of approved medical shops that operate within the premises of public health facilities in odisha. these shops are governed by the guidelines formulated by the department of health and family welfare, government of odisha and revised from time to time. 3. as per the informants, vide its resolution dated 17.11.2012, the state government issued revised guidelines with few new conditions to be adhered to the selected allottees of medical shops located within the premises of public health facilities.in para16 the revised guidelines stipulated that the allottees operating within the public health facilities would supply drugs at discounted prices to the public and the information about discount offered on drugs sold would be displayed at a prominent place. the discounts to be given to the public were as follows:- @15% on mrp discounts in case of medical shops located within medical colleges and capital hospital premises @10% on mrp in case of medical shops located within district headquartered hospitals @7.5% on mrp in case of medical shops located within sub-divisional hospitals @5% on mrp in case of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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