Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Page 1 of about 68,731 results (0.033 seconds)

Jan 09 2020 (SC)

Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... a division bench. this appeal to the division bench does not lie in all cases and must be provided for either under the letters patent or any other special enactment. even where such appeal lies the appeal is heard by two or more judges of the high court. we cannot envisage a situation where an ..... obvious that the order of the high court cannot be challenged before any other forum except the supreme court. the provision of intra court appeal whether by way of letters patents or special enactment is a system that provides for correction of judgments within the high courts where a judgment rendered by a single judge may be subject to challenge before ..... judge which was required to be transferred to the tribunal.7. we may point out that after the enactment of the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1962 letters patents are no longer applicable to the high court of allahabad. however, special appeals are provided against the judgment of a single judge to a division bench. the high ..... allahabad high court in union of india and others vs. ram baran1 held that the phrase other proceedings in section 34 of the act would include all appeals including letters patent appeals (hereinafter referred to as lpas). it was held that since the tribunal is a substitute of the high court, the tribunal could decide an appeal against the order of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2019 (HC)

M/S b.e.c. Industries vs.union of India

Court : Delhi

..... one officer/desk instead of different departments handling different forms in relation to the same application.5. the present order be communicated to mr. o.p. gupta, the controller of patents, designs and trade marks in order to ensure that he personally looks into the matter and a proper affidavit is filed by the trade marks registry to explain the manner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2019 (HC)

Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd. Vs.the Registrar of Trademarks & ...

Court : Delhi

..... one officer/desk instead of different departments handling different forms in relation to the same application.5. the present order be communicated to mr. o.p. gupta, the controller of patents, designs and trade marks in order to ensure that he personally looks into the matter and a proper affidavit is filed by the trade marks registry to explain the manner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2019 (HC)

Kishore Kumar vs.union of India

Court : Delhi

..... one officer/desk instead of different departments handling different forms in relation to the same application.5. the present order be communicated to mr. o.p. gupta, the controller of patents, designs and trade marks in order to ensure that he personally looks into the matter and a proper affidavit is filed by the trade marks registry to explain the manner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2019 (HC)

Mr Ravi K Vs. Mr Mahesh Medhekar

Court : Karnataka

..... was confirmed and he became a permanent employee. according to the plaintiff, he did not have an efficient work environment and he had difficulty in his efforts of filing research patents solely for the fourth defendant company. that first and second defendant never encouraged nor tolerated plaintiffs efforts of innovation and his invention could not be ..... patented in the name of fourth defendant. that the plaintiff was --"threatened by the first defendant, which resulted in his submission of resignation to the second defendant on 08/06/2012. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2019 (HC)

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp & Anr vs.sanjeev Gupta & Ors

Court : Delhi

..... this case, therefore, is not in any event dispositive of the plaintiffs claim for an injunction.17. mr.selvin raja s argument regarding abandonment of the plaintiffs application for patent in respect of the combination of sitagliptin and metformin also does not bear scrutiny. the division bench of this court in merck sharp and dohme corporation (supra), which concerns ..... and the combination of sitagliptin and metformin, sold under the names istavel and istamet. plaintiff no.1 claims to have patents for this product in 102 countries. defendant no.2 is a company incorporated in cambodia, which markets and supplies pharmaceutical products in cambodia and myanmar. defendant no.1 is ..... order.3. plaintiff no.1 is a company incorporated in new jersey, usa, which manufactures and markets several pharmaceutical products. plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit patent, which, according to it, covers the chemical sitagliptin and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. plaintiff no.2 is the licensee of plaintiff no.1 for marketing, distributing and selling sitagliptin ..... the defendants from manufacturing, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, or for directly or indirectly dealing in any product that infringes the subject matter of the suit patent, and any claim thereof. this court, by an order dated 26.04.2018, granted an ex parte order of injunction on the said application. i.a. no.12403/2018 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2019 (HC)

Communication Components Antenna Inc. Vs.ace Technologies Corp. And Or ...

Court : Delhi

..... common order, but subject to the reservation of the defendants noted in paragraph 18 below.2. the suit is in respect of infringement of a patent [indian patent no.240893]. of the plaintiff, as well as damages and other reliefs. on 02.11.2018, the court passed an ex parte injunction ..... sethi. the court was considering an application for an injunction against the defendants from manufacturing or dealing in the antennae which allegedly infringe the suit patent. the injunction sought by the plaintiff would, if granted, operate during the pendency of the suit. the arrangements ordered by the court in ..... those made thereafter. he drew my attention specifically to the prima facie finding in the said judgment that the defendants had infringed the suit patent and to the fact that the court quantified the value of the bank guarantee/deposit required after examining the terms of a license agreement ..... with the above directions within one month, the defendants shall stand restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any models of antennae which infringe suit patent number in24089. 5. this judgment was carried in appeal by the defendants [fao(os) (comm) 186/2019].. the division bench, by an order ..... .79. the plaintiff has placed on record, in a sealed cover, the licence agreement signed with the licensee, in respect of the suit patent who was one of the defendants in the earlier suits. the said license agreement is between communication components antenna inc., which is the plaintiff the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2019 (HC)

Novartis Ag vs.union of India & Ors

Court : Delhi

..... member, as per ld. counsel for the parties.6. the ipab is a specialized forum which was constituted under the trade marks act and the patents act in order to ensure expeditious disposals of intellectual property matters. the manner in which the ipab has been functioning during the last over 15 ..... the functions of the controller under this act for at least five years; or (b) has, for at least ten years functioned as a registered patent agent and possesses a degree in w.p.(c) 11346/2019 page 2 of 4 5. engineering or technology or a masters degree in science ..... of one judicial member and one technical member. sections 84 of the trade marks act and 116 of the patents act are set out below: section 84. composition of appellate board.-. (2) subject to the other provisions of this act, a bench shall consist ..... ipab established under section 83 of the trade marks act 1999 is the appellate board under section 116 of the patents act, 1970 (hereinafter, patents act ) for hearing appeals against orders passed by the patent office as also revocation petitions etc., the bench of the appellate board, for any particular matter, has to consist ..... cm appl. 46769/2019 2. the present petition has been filed by the... petitioner as its appeal against the order of the patent office dated 16th august 2019, by which the patent granted to it in respect of the drug `ceritinib was challenged before the intellectual property appellate board (hereinafter, ipab ) is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 16 2019 (HC)

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association vs.the Controller General ...

Court : Delhi

..... .m. lall, senior advocate with and mr.rahul ........ petitioner ms.nancy roy vidhani, advocates mr.amarjit singh with ms.shubhi sharma, advocates for interveners. versus 1. the controller general of patents, designs & trade marks & anr through: mr.ravi ........ respondents prakash, cgsc with mr.farman ali, advocate coram: hon'ble mr. justice j.r. midha judgment (oral) the petitioner is aggrieved by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2019 (HC)

Gaur Hari Guchhait & Ors vs.shogun Organics Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... given shows that the defendants have deliberately chosen not to produce the beam patterns. in any event, the claims of the invention, and the beam patterns attached in the patent specification, show that the beam patterns need not be identical to the drawings accompanying the specification. minor variations would not obviate infringement. equivalence would also apply. the preferred embodiments ..... the cross-examination, it appears that the defendants have done a confused examination. the said confusion is about the registration of the product and not in respect of the patent for the innovative methodology of manufacturing the product. thus, while d-trans allethrin can be manufactured by hundreds of manufacturers, they cannot follow the innovative method of manufacturing for ..... confused, product with manufacturing process of the product . in fact, there is no cross-examination at all about the process for manufacturing d-trans allethrin, for which the patent was granted to the original plaintiff. this aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned single judge while deciding cs (comm) no.201/2017 vide ..... (e) thus, even if the product of the original plaintiff and original defendant were already registered under the 1968, act, then also the original defendants cannot infringe the process patent granted to the plaintiff. even if the product of the original defendants d-trans allethrin is registered under section 9(4) of the 1968, act, then they cannot, without .....

Tag this Judgment!


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