Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 2,372 results (0.032 seconds)

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others Vs. Shree Ram Builders and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-08-2013

..... would have been defendant who was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this court and therefore, in terms of clause 12 of the letters patent, the suit filed by the claimant on the subject matter of the arbitration, in this court against the petitioner was maintainable in this court. ..... respondents residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court alone has jurisdiction after petitioner obtaining leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. it is submitted that this court has rightly granted leave under section 12 and no case is made out for recalling the said order ..... , this court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition. this court has already granted leave under clause 12 of the letters patent to the petitioners in view of the fact that the property is situated outside mumbai. ? (f) mr. kamdar, learned senior counsel submits that ..... to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition. (c) mr. kamdar, the learned senior counsel places reliance on clause 12 of the letters patent which reads thus: ??12. original jurisdiction as to suits ?? and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at bombay, in ..... summons inter-alia praying for recalling of the order dated 15th march, 2012 passed by this court granting leave under clause xii of the letters patent. 3. mr.dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in support of the chamber summons made following submissions:- (a) agreement for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2013 (FN)

Already, Llc Vs. Nike, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-09-2013

..... the licensees counterclaim as moot. we reversed, finding the contro- versy still live because the licensees continued to manufactur[e] and sell[ ] additional articles claimed to fall under the patents, and the patent holders continued to demand[ ] . . . royalties for those products. id., at 364 365. here of course the whole point is that already is free to sell its ..... a result, larger companies with more resources will have standing to challenge the intellectual property portfolios of their more humble rivals not because they are threatened by any particular patent or trademark, but simply because they are competitors in the same market. this would further encourage parties to employ litigation as a weapon against their competitors rather than ..... invalid trademark. brief for petitioner 33 34. according to already, allowing nike to unilaterally moot the case subverts the important role federal courts play in the administration of federal patent and trademark law. id., at 40. it allows companies like nike to register and brandish invalid trademarks to intimidate smaller competitors, avoiding judicial review by issuing covenants in ..... property pro- fessors as amici curiae 3 (suggesting that standing extends to all participants in that field ); brief for public patent foundation as amici curiae 12 ( [t]he public has standing to challenge the validity of any issued patent or registered trademark in court ). under this approach, nike need not even have threatened to sue first. already, even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 2013 (SC)

M/S. I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-14-2013

..... on depreciation, pertinent for the controversy at hand, reads as follows: 32.(1)in respect of depreciation of (i)buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii)know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of april, 1998, owned, wholly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2013 (TRI)

Enercon (India) Limited Vs. Aloys Wobben

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Jan-23-2013

..... inventive step and did not sufficiently and fairly disclose the invention. though several prior arts were cited in the application, the only prior art that was focussed was us patent 5661390 ( ??390 patent, in short) in both oral and written submissions. the title of this prior art is ??inverter-fed motor drive with emi suppression ? . it is dated august ..... the same reasoning the impugned specifications referred to the feedback choke which is provided for improvement. according to the applicant, all elements in the invention are present in ??390 patent and therefore, it is anticipated. inventive step 24. as regards inventive step, the learned counsel referred to the decision in wind surfing international inc. v. tabur marine ..... action suit filed before the bombay high court. learned counsel submitted that the applicant must surrender the rights under the agreement (intellectual property licence agreement) before it attacks the patent. 15. in response, mr. r. parthasarathy, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 8.12.2008, the licence had been terminated and once it has been terminated ..... the applicant in the course of business will be prevented from selling the machinery, and the respondent is already suing for infringement. if the applicant succeeds in demolishing the patent in accordance with law, then the infringement suit must fail and the applicants commercial interest will be secured. therefore, the applicant herein passes the test of ajay industrial corporation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2013 (FN)

R (on the Application of Prudential Plc and Another) Vs. Special Commi ...

Court : UK Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-2013

..... rubber company, and the fact that in 1968 the legislature seemed to think it was necessary expressly to extend the privilege to the case of patent agents." in the circumstances nourse j made the order with some reluctance. he certainly did not identify the principle behind the rule. nor did ..... giving or receiving legal advice are never capable of being privileged if given by non-lawyers, i think that it was wrong. as far as patent and trade mark attorneys are concerned, the point no longer matters. their position has since been regulated by statute. 139. i would allow the ..... which clients routinely seek from them. i very much doubt whether many other professions will find themselves in the same position. it may be that patent agents did in 1984 when the court of appeal held in wilden pump engineering co v fusfeld [1985] fsr 159 that their legal advice did ..... is to my mind the strongest of them. it can fairly be summarised as follows: (1) legal professional privilege has been extended by statute to patent and trade mark attorneys, licensed conveyancers, and persons who without being barristers or solicitors are authorised to provide certain legal services under the courts and legal ..... the basis that lap is confined to advice given by lawyers, the courts have refused to extend lap to legal advice given by a trade mark agent, a patent agent, or a personnel consultant see, respectively, dormeuil trade mark [1983] rpc 131 (nourse j), wilden pump engineering co v fusfeld [1985] fsr 159 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 11 2013 (HC)

Cbz Chemicals Ltd Vs. Kee Pharma Ltd

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-11-2013

..... would be discharged in four parts as under:(i) the first part, constituting an amount of us $ 100,000 will be paid within one month of filing of the patent for the process, i.e. after the end of the time period mentioned under clause # 2.6. (ii) the second part, constituting an additional amount of us $ 100,000 will ..... support to the respondent to facilitate the validation of the design of the process, the development of the process that leads to the manufacture of atorvastatin and filing of the patent for the same. clause 4 of the agreement dealt with the mode of payment of us$ 550,000 by the respondent to the petitioner. a sum of us$ 40,000 ..... the payment within the stipulated time period, the petitioner would have the liberty to invoke the bg issued by the respondent. upon the respondent filing for patent of the process and grant of the patent by the patent office, the agreement was to come to its logical conclusion.4. under clause 4.d, the payment of us$ 550,000 was for successful validation ..... of the process developed and patented by the petitioner leading to a patentable process to manufacture the drug atorvastatin and accordingly certified by the respondent, followed by an application for patent for the process being filed with the patent office, at which stage the remaining consideration of us$ 450,000 would become due and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (TRI)

Pharmacia and Upjohn Company Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Feb-13-2013

..... invention belonging to the appellant. the witness whose affidavit has been filed is the co-inventor of this invention also. the d1 specifications are almost identical to the impugned patent. the field of invention reads as follows: ??the present invention relates to pharmaceutical compositions. more specifically, it relates to the use of modified pharmaceutically acceptable liquid carriers that ..... to be considered in determining unobviousness, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant, and must be weighed in substance. a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. 12. the relevant extract of the complete specifications is as follows: ..... of ordinary skill, upon reading reference, would be discouraged from following path set out in reference, or would be led in direction divergent from path that was taken by patent applicant. reference will ??teach away ? from invention if it suggests that line of development flowing from references disclosure is unlikely to be productive of result sought by applicant. ..... marine (great britain) ltd. ?? where it was held that answering the question on obviousness required four steps to be taken: i)identifying the inventive concept embodied in the patent; ii)imputing to a normally skilled but unimaginative addressee what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date; iii)identifying the differences if any between the matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2013 (HC)

Disney Enterprises, Inc Vs. Mr. Rajesh Bharti and ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-13-2013

..... addition to compensatory damages also of rs. 5 lakhs, justice r.c. chopra observed that time has come when the courts dealing in actions for infringement of trademarks, copy rights, patents etc., should not only grant compensatory damages but also award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity out of lust .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (FN)

Gunn Vs. Minton

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-20-2013

..... , at 701. nor can we accept the suggestion that the federal courts greater familiarity with patent law means that legal malpractice cases like this one belong in federal court. see air measurement technologies, 504 f. 3d, at 1272 ( the litigants will also benefit from ..... decision. but even assuming that a state court s case-within-a-case adjudication may be preclusive under some circumstances, the result would be limited to the parties and patents that had been before the state court. such fact-bound and situation-specific effects are not sufficient to establish federal arising under jurisdiction. empire healthchoice assurance, inc., supra ..... identically, applying our 1331 and 1338(a) precedents interchangeably. see christianson v. colt industries operating corp., 486 u. s. 800 809 (1988). for cases falling within the patent-specific arising under jurisdiction of 1338(a), however, congress has not only provided for federal jurisdiction but also eliminated state jurisdiction, decreeing that [n]o state court shall have jurisdiction ..... experimental use. the texas supreme court reversed, concluding that the case properly belonged in federal court because the success of minton s malpractice claim relied upon a question of federal patent law. held: section 1338(a) does not deprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over minton s malpractice claim. pp. 4 13. (a) congress has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2013 (HC)

Microsoft Corporation and anr. Vs. Mr. Ganesh Wakode and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-20-2013

..... addition to compensatory damages also of rs. 5 lakhs, justice r.c. chopra observed that time has come when the courts dealing in actions for infringement of trademarks, copy rights, patents etc., should not only grant compensatory damages but also award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity out of lust .....

Tag this Judgment!


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