Court : Mumbai
..... has specifically provided that the suit and counter claim to be transferred to the high court once a counter claim is made for revocation of patent, can an application for permission to place counter claim on record be rejected, only because the plaintiffs desire that the suit should be ..... has in unequivocal terms clarified that pendency of the petition shall, in no way, preclude the trial court and office of the controller of patents from dealing with respective suits pending between the parties. in that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that the applicants are indulging ..... the case of surajmal rambux & ors. v. laxminarayan raghunath, air (38) 1951 nagpur 284, the learned counsel submits that grounds for revocation of patent and opposition to grant are different and that simultaneous proceedings are not barred in law. learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the delhi high court ..... objections of present petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the learned judge to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under section 104 of the patents act, 1970. in that view of the matter, i find that since the petitioners have a remedy under section 115 to prefer the civil ..... objections of present petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the learned judge to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under section 104 of the patents act, 1970. in that view of the matter, i find that since the petitioners have a remedy under section 115 to prefer the civil .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
..... the plaintiffs/petitioner is accepted, that would mean that every patentee will get injunction from the court just on filing a suit claiming therein that his product is patented and the patent has not been revoked. in other words, the court would be acting just like a rubber stamp and granting relief without application of mind.16. the above ..... if the patentee exercises his exclusive right to prevent them from doing so.17. learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners made one more submission. according to him, once a patent is registered, the patentee, complaining of infringement by filing a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, should normally be granted a temporary injunction. in support of this submission he placed ..... means adapted to be adjusted to accommodate individuals of different heights and body structure.3. according to the plaintiffs/petitioners, in the year 2005 the defendant/respondent infringed the patent by producing similar device/item and supplied it to the department of horticulture, government of himachal pradesh and some private parties. the plaintiffs/petitioners have sued the defendant/ ..... relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. the plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing patent no. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. it is alleged that the invention was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1958Cal248
..... learned judge observed as follows:'...... the intention of the legislature was that when the original petition came before the authority dealing with the prolongation of patents, that authority should consider once for all whether the original term should be extended for seven years or for fourteen years -- for seven years or ..... at all having regard to the merits and the invention nor did the union give the petitioner any hearing or consider the fact whether the patent had or had not been sufficiently remunerative to the petitioner; but on the 12th april, 1954 the union of india informed the petitioners that ..... although the second application for extension was made, the controller, respondent no. 2, did not act in terms of rule 25 of the indian patents and designs rules. in violation of the said rule the controller failed to advertise the said petition in the official gazette nor did the central ..... the said litigations had been pending, on 12th january, 1954, the petitioners made an application for a further extension off the term of the patent under section 15 of the act and alternatively the petitioners prayed that under section 15 (3) the petitioner might get a chance to place their ..... was further extended up to 12th july. 1954. it is alleged that owing to various litigations relating to the infringement of the said patent by various persons the patent had not been remunerative at all, as the petitioners had to prosecute the said litigations or to defend them for a period of 26 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515
..... air 1983 delhi 496. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bishwanath prasad radhey shyam v. hindustan metal industries : 2scr757 to explain what a patent means. there cannot be any two opinions or any controversy relating to the same. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bengal waterproof limited v. bombay ..... appellate board issuing certain directions. no doubt there is some controversy between the parties that these directions relate to appointment in the context of trademarks and not in relation to patents. this question also need not be further gone into while disposing of the present interlocutory application for the reason that there is no controversy between the parties at least ..... trial or experiment only; or(b) by the government or by any person authorised by the government or by a government undertaking, in consequence of the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title having communicated or disclosed the invention directly or indirectly to the government or person authorised as aforesaid or to the government undertaking ..... submissions at length were made by both the parties is the ground which had been specified in para-6 (k) which is as hereunder:the complete specification of the present patent application which was filed by the patentee-respondent no. 1 was already applied for manufacturing by the other company in india before central insecticide board, ministry of agriculture to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1987)65CTR(Cal)103,172ITR521(Cal)
..... or results of future research and development by the english company relating to its products and to furnish to the indian company at the execution of the agreement secret or patent formulations used by the english company for the manufacture of its products. the assessee undertook to maintain secrecy of the formulation, methods and processing of products of the english company ..... payment made by the indian company to the assessee referable to user of such exclusive information would have the character of royalty though the assessee did not have a registered patent in respect of such methods and manufacturing processes.28. in support of the respective contentions of the parties, a number of decisions were cited at the bar which are ..... indian company technical information and know-how. such information and know-how as contemplated in the agreement do not stand on the same footing as protected rights under a registered patent. it was contended that there was no property right on such technical information and know-how; until such special knowledge and skill exclusive to the person concerned could form the ..... . in construing the agreement between the assessee and the indian company, the commissioner (appeals) noted that in the agreement there was no separate provision for payment on account of any patent licence to be granted by the assessee. he held that payments were received for the entire services by the assessee which included supply of data, assistance and information and supply .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
..... was apprehensive that assistant controller may be biased and, therefore, filed writ petitions in this court. according to mr. kapoor, this court would have territorial jurisdiction as the patent office (head office) government of india is situated at salt lake city, kolkata. learned counsel further submitted that since the notice dated 5th january, 2009 has been served ..... conveniens. therefore, the learned single judge has correctly concluded that the bogey of forum non conveniens has been inappropriately raised by the appellant. government of india granted the patent in respect of a technology which would substantially reduce, if not eradicate, environmental pollution by treating exhaust gas emissions having a specific alkaline ph produced during the combustion ..... mumbai. firstly, it was the application for amendment made by respondent no. 1. secondly, it was the oppositions filed by the appellants under section 25(2) of the patents act, 1970. in spite of repeated requests, the assistant controller decided to hear the opposition of the appellant, first. this attitude of the assistant controller compelled respondent no. ..... protracted proceedings, hearing of oppositions only relating to amendments was concluded by the authority on 25th september, 2008 and november 7, 2008. the main oppositions to the grant of patent were not heard. the assistant controller rejected the amendment application 'for the time being' by order dated 7th november, 2008. against this order, respondent no. 1 filed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); 45SCL362(Bom)
..... be said to be substantially similar. going purely by the design aspect, i find that there is substantial similarity between u.s. patent nos. des.340,947 patented on 2.11.1993 and the registered design of the plaintiffs. the only difference seems to be that the length of the clip on the u ..... . gazettes were received by that office on 14.8.1992 and 25.3.1994 and that the said gazettes were a part of the records of the patent office library and were available for public inspection. the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, contended that the publication is not of a design which can ..... of the claim or to what was published in india or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in section 13;provided that in relation to patents granted under the indian patents and designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911), this clause shall have effect as if the words 'or elsewhere' has been omitted;'in contrast, ..... this act, may, on the petition of any person interested or of the central government or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of the patent, be revoked by the high court on any of the following grounds, that is to say:-...(e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim ..... is not of relevance in the present case. it is important to note that where parliament intended to govern the revocation or cancellation of patents granted under the indian patent and designs act, 1911, in accordance with the law under which they were granted, it made specific provision that in relation to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
..... the petitioners submissions. the petitioners there were in correspondence with the office of the cop in relation to the defects pointed out in their respective patent applications and had in fact made requests for oral hearing. in those circumstances, this court held that those petitioners could not be held to ..... treated as withdrawn by the applicant.provided that-(i) the applicant may, at any time after filing the application but before the grant of a patent, withdraw the application by making a request in the prescribed manner; and(ii) in a case where secrecy direction has been issued under section 35 ..... union of india168 (2010) dlt 461 adopted a realistic and practical approach and accepted the explanation offered by the petitioners as to why their respective patent applications should not be so treated. according to him, the facts of the present case were far better than the facts of those cases.16. ..... 149467 for rs. 10,000/-) returned herewith."11. on 1st february 2011 the petitioners attorney wrote to the cop giving the details of the patent application and enclosed an affidavit dated 5th january 2011 of mr. toni mon george explaining the docketing error that led to the deadline for filing the ..... on 18th january 2011 on the presumption that the amendment to the priority date would have been carried out in the office of the controller of patents (cop) since neither the petitioner nor its counsel was informed of its refusal. however, the request for amendment was not recorded in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal109
..... , there is no substance in such contention. it is difficult to say under what circumstances the constituted attorney has verified the affidavit and there is no bar under the indian patents and designs act for a constituted attorney to verify a petition or an affidavit. lastly, mr. tibriwala has argued that the subject-matter involves complicated questions of fact and, as ..... petitioner's design not being novel or original, therefore, cannot be sustained. in this connection, mr. sankar ghosh has drawn my attention to the following passage in blanco white's patents for inventions' (3rd edition) page 263:'the issues in an action for infringement of design normally reduced to the complementary questions of validity and infringement, it should be noted, however ..... exist also very conspicuous points of identity between the two. 7. i may now discuss the relevant law on this point. the material portions of section 51a of the indian patent and designs act, 1911 read as follows :'cancellation of registration -- any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design- (a) at any time ..... originality was in respect of the shape and configuration of the design of the said locks for cycle as illustrated in the annexure to the certificate of the controller of patents and designs dated may 25, 1965 which are annexed to the petition and collectively marked 'a'. after such registration, the petitioner has been manufacturing commercially the said cycle lock and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2009(40)PTC593(Del)
..... plaintiffs' patent and there was no overlapping between the two products. the concept, idea, the principle and the technology of the two products was entirely different. it is also submitted that the ..... . it is also submitted that plaintiffs were guilty of material concealment and the suit filed by plaintiffs was liable to be rejected.4. the defendants have distinguished between the products /patent of plaintiffs and their own products. on the basis of this distinction, it is submitted that the working of the two products was entirely different. there was no infringement of ..... protect the healthcare workers from the risk of accidentally having pierces of the needle of ic catheter. the defendants in support of this plea mentioned about the us patent, specification no. 5599310, a patent specification of m/s johnson & johnson medical inc filed on 7th june 1995 and granted on 4th january 1997. it is submitted by defendants that even the ..... engaging with the proximal wall of the needle guard to prevent the needle guard from moving from the protective position.2. it is submitted by the plaintiffs that the above patent of the plaintiffs is in respect of iv catheter, a device through which intravenous fluids are administered. the invention made by plaintiffs addressed a problem that persisted in existing catheters .....Tag this Judgment!