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 : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal433,67CWN743
..... they did not possess either the technical or financial ability to work the patented invention. reference was made to the decision in the case of in re j. l. cathro's application reported in (1934) 51 rpc 75 ..... the controller was satisfied that the grounds specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of section 22 with respect to patent no. 43679 had been made out. he then proceeded to consider the objection of the patentee, viz., that the applicants were not 'persons interested' because ..... within the provisions of section 22. grounds (1), (3), (4) and (5) were also taken in opposition to the application for licence under patent no. 43679. 10. before the controller it was admitted by the representative of the patentee-'that in spite of a very large demand for theintermediates in ..... therein without undue delay and to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable; (b) that the inventor or other person beneficially entitled to a patent shall receive reasonable remuneration having regard to the nature of the invention; (c) that the interests of any person for the time being working ..... application for a certificate under article 133(1)(c) of the constitution.2. the matter arises out of a decision of the controller of patents under the indian patents and designs act, 1911, holding that the respondent arlabs private limited should be granted the licences they seek. an appeal preferred there from .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT7(HC)
..... designs registered in any other part of 'his majesties dominions' provided the central government found that such other dominion had made satisfactory provision for the protection of inventions or designs patented or registered in india. under section 78a(4) of the 1911 act, the united kingdom, new zealand, eire. ceylon, canada and australia were notified as convention countries. the applicant ..... act is section 135. section 135(1) provides :'135. convention application.--(1) without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 6, where a person has made an application for a patent in respect of an invention in a convention country (hereinafter referred to as the 'basic application'), and that person or the legal representative or assignee of that person makes an ..... application under this act for a patent within twelve months after the date on which the basic application was made, the priority date of a claim of the complete specification, being a claim based on matter disclosed ..... convention country for all the provisions of the act with retrospective effect from 20lhapril 1972. the explanatory memorandum issued in. support of the notification dated 29.12.1972 reads :the patents act, 1970 was brought into force on the 20th april, 1972. under section 133(1) of that act, the central government is empowered to declare a country as a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal77
..... between indian explosives limited and the patentees cannot be a factor in deciding the terms for interim working of the patented invention by the applicants. i am of the opinion that even the 3% royalty on the ex-factory sale price offered by sunil kumar basu on behalf of the applicants ..... .200,000 by indian explosives limited to the patentees. the possibility of collaboration between the patentees and the indian explosives limited extending even after the expiry of the term of patent no. 77950 cannot be ruled out. further, it is well-known that indian explosives ltd. and the patentees are closely allied and associated; accordingly, whatever agreement may be made ..... 1) the applicants, catalysts and chemicals india (west asia) limited shall have the full licence and authority to use or exercise the process claimed in claims 19-24 of indian patent. specification no. 77950 and to use, sell, distribute and dispose of the catalyst manufactured by such manufacturer and hereby permit the person(s) purchasing the catalysts so manufactured by the ..... metal or alkaline earth and metal compound which is readily soluble in water and is applied to the nickel and refractory oxide material catalyst components by impregnation.'3. the said patent contained several examples indicatory of the operations of the catalyst. claims 19 to 24 according to the appellant dealt with the methods of producing the catalyst as indicated in claims .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1975Cal178
..... which could be considered in this appeal is whether the alleged invention had been publicly used or publicly known prior to the application for a patent.13. as discussed before, it is clear from the evidence adduced that such prior public user has not been established and the appellants have ..... authorities were cited by mr. de in support and he contended that the subject-matter of this application not being an invention at all a patent should not have been granted. this appears to me to be a new ground altogether and it seems that under the earlier act the application ..... . from the evidence adduced before the deputy controller of patents and designs it appears that the appellants failed to establish the ground. what was established that the technique used by the appellants in manufacturing the ..... in section 9 (d) of the earlier act. to succeed on that ground the appellants had to establish that the invention for which the patent was being claimed namely the container and closure had been publicly used or was publicly known in india prior to the filing of the said application ..... february 1960 and also to messrs. zandu pharmaceutical works ltd. since march 1969. it was further alleged in the said opposition the alleged claim for patent by the respondents as regards improvement in container closure was neither novel nor new but an application and utilization of the known technique of crimping commonly used .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal210
..... have been objected to.' 15. carefully examining the said finding and also the complete specification in this case i have no hesitation in holding that the applicants are claiming patent regarding invention to a substance prepared or produced by chemical process. the appellant is simply eliminating the stages in the manufacturing process of the said substance which involves chemical ..... from gaseous form to the solid form. that only involves physical process and no chemical porcess is involved. mr. lal also submitted that under section 116(2) of the patents act, 1970, it has been specifically provided that appeal to high court would lie from a decision of the controller under section 15. therefore, there is no substance ..... of the provisions of section 5(b). mr. roy chowdhury relied on the complete specification of the appellant wherefrom it is quite clear that the substance on which the patent is claimed by the appellant is produced by chemical process, firstly by gases and thereafter, by de-sublimation to the lobular solid form. therefore, mr. roy chowdhury submitted ..... substantially free from undesired contaminants which would detract from the intended desublimation step.'thereafter various examples were given and the claims of the appellant in the said application for patent are as follows :'1. solid lobular aluminium chloride of generally curvi-linear contour compositely constituted of autogenously bonded pluralities of smaller sized particles and characterized by the substantial .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(3)CHN577
..... (a) of the general clauses act, 1897 it is not permissible.17. in reply, counsel for the petitioners refers me to section 21 of the patents(amendment) act, 2005 omitting the chapter concerned from the principal act. he draws my attention also to the provisions in section 6 of the general clauses ..... the matter is remitted, then the controller is under the obligation to give fresh decision, in the application according to the then section 24a of the patents act, 1970.13. he cites to me the decisions in babu dhirendra nath roy v. ijjetali miah and ors. : air1940cal423 (regarding saving of right ..... set aside and the matter is remitted to the controller.11. the position is disputed by counsel for the petitioners. according to him, even after the patents (amendment) act, 2005, doing away with the regime of grant of exclusive marketing rights, the application submitted by the petitioners for such right has not ..... .i am afraid such contention, if accepted, is bound to defeat the legislative mandate given by sub-section (1) of section 24a of the patents act, 1970 that cast on the controller an unqualified obligation to obtain a report from the examiner for the purpose of giving final decision in an ..... any report while deciding the application for exclusive marketing right.7. counsel for the petitioners argues that in view of provisions in section 24a of the patents act, 1970 the controller was under an unqualified obligation to consider the report of the examiner. it seems to me that he is right in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1985Cal334
..... application, inasmuch as all the points raised by the petitioner could also be gone into and decided by the controller at the time of final hearing. undoubtedly the controller of patents and designs have powers, similar to the powers given under the civil procedure code, to issue subpoena to witnesses on the application of the parties. but it is the discretionary power ..... of all prayed for leave being granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the said himangshu bhusan pal. thereafter on the second day of the hearing the deputy controller of patents & designs rejected theprayers made by the petitioner on 6th sept., 1983. according to the petitioner no formal order was passed by the respondent but the decision of the respondent ..... respondent deputy controller of patents & designs reiterating the prayers made by him on 10th august, 1983 praying for leave to file an affidavit of the said suraj mohan khorana, prayed for rejection of the ..... the affidavit of one suraj mohan khorana affirmed on 2nd july, 1983. the petitioner sought for further leave to cross-examine the said himangshu bhusan pal. the deputy controller of patents & designs rejected the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and fixed the next date of hearing on the 6th september, 1983. the petitioner filed a formal interlocutory application before the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1971Cal421
..... the controller's power of enlargement or extension of time under rule 67 would be available, in appropriate circumstances, to the case of a revoked patent, would be questions of such importance as to justify grant of certificate under the above clause.7. in the above view, we reject this ..... the relevant act even, on the arguments, made by mr. sen, for finding out the mistake, if any, one has to travel beyond the patent and beyond the order or orders of competent authorities under the act. in such circumstances, the appellant's application under section 64 would, obviously, be ..... under article 133 of the constitution and he relied for this purpose, on the decision of this court, reported in farbenfebriken bayer-aktiengesellschaft v. joint controller of patents & designs. : air1963cal433 and hanskumar kishan chand v. union of india, : 1scr1177 . it was mr. basak'u submission that in the instant ..... against which the intended appeal to the supreme court is sought to be taken, and from the related judgment of the learned joint controller of patents that the appellant's application under section 64 of the above act was dismissed primarily on the ground that it was barred under sub-section ..... has been under article 133(1) of the constitution of india,2. the facts, leading to this litigation, may be shortly stated as follows: the patent in question was granted on 13th december, 1951. necessary entry was made in the relevant register, but thereafter, on 3rd may, 1957, in a proceeding .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1982Cal30
..... , clear that a 'herbicide' is also a 'weedicide'. in my opinion the respondent had correctly classified the product and had fixed the term of the patent in accordance with the provisions of section 53(1)(a) of the act.13. for all the reasons mentioned above, the application fails. the petitioner is ..... reactive group is suitable for producing various end products such as her-bicidal compound or auxiliary agents for rubbers.'8. the provisions of section 2(1)(1) of patents act 1970 are as follows :--(1) 'medicine or drug' includes- (i) to (iii)..... (iv) insecticides, germicides, fungicides, weedicides and all other substances, ..... of the introduction of the principles or the provisions of law contained in the limitation act. the petitioners' counsel also construed various sections of the patents act. of 1970 and incited my attention to the provisions of different sections to show that whenever this act wanted to out a time limit, ..... been correctly done in accordance with this act. the respondent further stated that the petitioner as a patentee did not raise any objection when the patent document was issued to him on 28-6-1977 providing for 7 years time from 5-5-1974. this belated application is barred by limitation. ..... in section 2(1)(1) of the act. the respondent, however, wrongly classified this product as a 'drug' and fixed the period of the patent for 7 years from the date of the sealing. according to the petitioner the period of this novel compound should have been 14 years by virtue .....Tag this Judgment!