Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 7,381 results (0.075 seconds)

Aug 21 2008 (SC)

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

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!

Sep 10 2008 (SC)

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...

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!

Oct 01 2008 (SC)

Natco Pharma Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of the fact that the controversy involved before ipab is concerning crystal modification of a n-phenyl-2-pyrimidineamine derivative and since the dispute is regarding patentability of the process as well as the product that we are of the view that such complicated disputes need to be resolved by ipab which must ..... making our order a precedent for future cases, we called for a panel/list of controllers duly qualified under section 116 of the patents act, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2006.6. from that list submitted to us, we have opted for the name of dr. p.c. chakraborti, ..... of technical member in the intellectual property appellant board (ipab) constituted under the provisions of section 116 of the patents act, 1970. on 2nd april, 2007, central government appointed s. chandrasekaran as technical member (patent) of ipab vide notification of even date. on 3rd april, 2007, notification was issued notifying 2nd april, 2007 ..... it is also made clear that dr. p.c. chakraborti, who is presently deputy controller of patents and designs, will not be entitled to draw his salary for the aforestated period as deputy controller of patents and designs but, he would be entitled to protection of his seniority and other incidental benefits.9. ..... deputy controller of patents & designs, who holds post- graduate degree of m.sc. (chemistry) as well as ph.d.7. we, accordingly, direct that all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2013 (SC)

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... appellant was, therefore, never called upon to satisfy the tests laid down in section 3(d) of the act to establish the patentability of the patent subject. he further stated that since no occasion to do so had arisen earlier, no study relating to the efficacy of the free ..... 3 which talks of the known inventions, the products which are not considered to be inventions and therefore cannot be covered by the patent and patents cannot be sought for them. a good amendment is being introduced to that effect in clause 3 of the bill which says: ..... them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.section 4. inventions relating to atomic energy not patentable.-no patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the atomic ..... the doha declaration effectively reflected and addressed the deep disquiet of the developing and the least-developed countries regarding their obligation under trips to grant patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products and the likelihood of its highly adverse consequence on public-health. dr. dhawan, appearing for cipla ..... adversely affect the international transfer of technology.part iisection 5: patentsarticle 27patentable subject matter1. subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2010 (SC)

Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535

..... the provisions of section 51a, the full bench on a reference to sections 53 and 54 relating to piracy of registered designs and the incorporation of the provisions of the patents act, 1970, into the designs act, held that the powers conferred under section 53 were not absolute and did not contemplate an absolute right in the owner to prevent all ..... for determination before the high court in the two appeals was whether the delhi high court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the controller of patents and designs, kolkata. inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the delhi. high court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have ..... first appeals were filed in the delhi high court, being fao no. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th march, 2008, passed by the controller of patents and designs, kolkata, under section 19(1) of the designs act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'insecticide coil' in class 12 belonging to the respondent no. 1 herein. the ..... . jaya hind industries ltd. and anr. : air 1988 delhi 82, wherein it was held that rejection of an application for grant of patent under the provisions of the patents act, 1970, and the patents rules, 1972, by the deputy controller of patents and designs, bombay, gave rise to a cause of action whereby appeal against such order of refusal could be filed only in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2009 (SC)

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Tvs Motor Company Limited

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009(4)AWC4159; JT2009(12)SC103; (2009)8MLJ672(SC); 2009(41)PTC398(SC); 2009(12)SCALE546; (2009)9SCC797; 2009AIRSCW6018; 2008(10)SCR636; 2009(12)Scale346

..... suit.'9. as has been observed by us in the aforesaid case, experience has shown that in our country, suits relating to the matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. this is a very ..... . the court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.in our opinion, in matters relating to trademarks, copyright and patents the proviso to order xvii rule 1(2) c.p.c. should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the ..... chawalwala as follows:.without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trademarks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. experience shows that in the matters of ..... 1111 of 2007 had been filed by the appellant herein before the learned single judge of the madras high court alleging infringement of its patent no. 195904 under the indian patents act, 1973 (for short 'the act').4. the learned single judge granted an interim injunction on 16th february, 2008.5. challenging ..... trademarks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1986 (SC)

Monsanto Company by their Patent Agent, De Penning and De Penning Vs. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1986SC712; 1986(2)ARBLR19(SC); (1986)3CompLJ66(SC); 1986(1)SCALE74; (1986)1SCC642; [1986]1SCR120; 1986(1)LC304(SC)

..... as a company in india. it was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled 'phytotoxic compositions' and 'grass selective herbicide compositions', duly patented under patent number 104120 dated march 1, 1966 and 125381 dated february 20, 1970. the claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained in the specifications of ..... as contained in this marked as m.o.nos. 2 and 3. the plaintiffs also asked for an account etc. annexed to the plaint were the two specifications relating to patent numbers 104120 and 125381. in the specification relating to 'phytotoxic composition' (specification no. 104120), it was claimed : we claim :1. a phytotoxic composition comprising as an active ingredient a ..... the legend on the tins containing the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what was sold by the defendants was nothing but a reproduction of the first plaintiff's patented formulations. the formulations of the defendant were sent to shri ram institute for analysis and they were said to contain the chemical 'butachlor chemical formula for which is 2 ..... so much the plaintiffs said, and this is very important, 'the active ingredient mentioned in the claim is called 'butachlor'. it suggested, without expressly saying it that the plaintiffs' patents covered butachlor also which in fact it did not, as we shall presently see. it was next stated that the first plaintiff had permitted the second plaintiff to work the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1978 (SC)

Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. Hindustan Metal Industries

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1982SC1444; (1979)2SCC511; [1979]2SCR757

..... the application, the applicant may leave it at any subsequent time within 9 months from the date of the application. the application is then examined by the controller of patents for the patentability of the invention. the controller then makes a thorough search among his records for novelty. the controller is bound to refer to ah examiner an application, in respect ..... flaw which would have warranted interference by the appellate bench.39. be that as it may, from the discussion that follows, the conclusion is inescapable that the invention got patented by m/s. hindustan metal industries, respondent herein, was neither a manner of new manufacture, nor a distinctive improvement on the old contrivance involving any novelty or inventive step ..... hoechst & b. corporation v. untchan laboratories : air1969bom255 .with the aforesaid prefatory survey, we now turn to the 1911 act. the act provides various checks to prevent an invalid patent being granted which does not involve any inventive step or a manner of new manufacture or improvement. the procedure for obtaining an exclusive privilege under this act (before the amending ..... the plantiff-firm, invented a device and method for the manufacture of utensils, in 1951. the plaintiff after filing the necessary specifications and claims in the patent office, got the alleged invention patented under the indian patent and designs act, 1911 (hereinafter called the act), at no. 46368-51 on may 6, 1953 with effect from december 13, 1951 as assignee .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 2000 (SC)

M/S S. M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. M/S Cadbury (India) Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2000LC1(SC); (2000)3GLR2548; JT2000(7)SC151; 2000(4)SCALE713; (2000)5SCC573; [2000]Supp1SCR86; 2001(1)LC181(SC)

..... there was considerable criticism of the principles laid down in american cyanamid. (see also floyd, interlocutory injunctions since cyanamid 1983 e 1 pr 238, (cole, interlocutory injunctions in u.k. patent cases 1979.e 1 pr 71 (see also edenborough m and tritton, american cyanamid revisited 1996 e 1 pr 234 and philipps in 1997 jbl 486. this court referred to ..... distribution is in accordance with any one or more of the conditions specified in section 47.it is true that under section 107 of the patents act, it is permissible in any suit for infringement of a patent, for the defendant to raise all pleas in defence which he could have raised under section 64 of the act for revocation and there ..... ground on which it may be revoked under section 64 shall be available as a ground for defence.(2) in any suit for infringement of a patent by the making, using or importation of any machine, apparatus or other article or by the using of any process or by the importation, use or distribution of any medicine ..... to move for rectification and is to adjourn the suit.15. learned senior counsel, in this context, pointed out the distinction, between the trade marks act and the patents act, by referring us to section 107 of the patents act, 1970. that section reads as follows:section 107 defences, etc. in suits for infringement:(1) in any suit for infringement of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 19 1989 (SC)

Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC2227

..... ayurvedic, unani and homoeopathic preparations' as was done in the director's circular. on a comparison of the earlier explanation and the substituted explanation one would notice that earlier 'patent and proprietary medicines' meant a drug. in the substituted explanation it means any medicinal preparation. however, it cannot be lost sight of that the words 'medicinal preparation' ..... (allopathic, ayurvedic, unani and homoeopathic preparations) containing alcohol, opium, indian hemp or other narcotic drug or narcotic, which fall within the purview of the new definition of 'patent or proprietary medicines' given in the explanation, should therefore, be recovered at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem from the holders of the licences granted under the ..... 17. the schedule was amended by the amending act no. 19 of 1961 and the amended schedule stood as follows :item no.descriptionof dutiable goodsrate ofduly1.medicinalpreparations, being patent or proprietary medicines,containing alcohol and which are not capable of being consumed as ordinaryalcoholic beverages.ten percent ad valorem.2.medicinalpreparations, containing alcohol, which are pre- pared ..... preparations' manufactured by the plaintiff (appellant) labelled and marked by the plaintiff (appellant) under their brand name and trade mark. this, therefore, fell within the scope of patent or proprietary medicine as given in explanation i below the schedule annexed to the act, as inserted from april 23, 1962 by finance act (no. 2) 1962.9. .....

Tag this Judgment!


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