Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1957 Page 1 of about 353 results (0.008 seconds)

Jun 25 1957 (HC)

Hiralal Banjara and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-25-1957

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!

Jul 08 1957 (HC)

The Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Bharat Thread Mills (India)

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-08-1957

Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR397

..... that act for the purpose of determining when the court is to exercise that jurisdiction. one cannot turn to the provisions of the letters patent or the civil procedure code for the purpose of determining when that jurisdiction has to be exercised. if the legislature intended to circumscribe the ambit of ..... the legislature did not intend to confine the jurisdiction of the high court under section 26 in respect of an application for revocation of a patent, to cases where the subject-matter had arisen within its jurisdiction and to eases where the respondent resided or carried on business within its ..... regard to the place of residence of the respondents to the application or the place where he carried on business. the provisions relating to patents indicate that the legislature contemplated the sending down for the trial of any issue in such an application to another high court. it also ..... by section 51a of the act is a special jurisdiction, and that for. the exercise of that jurisdiction one cannot turn to the letters patent or the civil procedure code for ascertaining the jurisdiction of the high court in the matter. he points out that where the legislature intended that an application ..... question of jurisdiction which has been the principal matter of controversy between the parties. the petition is made under section 51a of the indian patents and designs act, 1911. section 51a provides that any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1957 (FN)

United States Gypsum Co. Vs. National Gypsum Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-25-1957

..... much weight, justifies what was done here. the basic difference between hartford and this case is that, in hartford, the injunction against infringement suits on hartford's misused patents was part of the original relief granted the government, whereas here, that relief was added, without the taking of any evidence as to justifying intervening circumstances, some five ..... from the uniform price-fixing provisions of the license agreements. in the original suit, the only undisputed issue of fact was that gypsum had given its competitors uniform patent licenses containing a price-fixing clause. the government also charged gypsum with a variety of other abuses, including price-fixing on unpatented articles, elimination of jobbers, and ..... proceedings. [ footnote 5 ] thereafter, the district court, with one dissent, [ footnote 6 ] interpreting this court's decision to mean that gypsum's multiple uniform price-fixing patent licenses were illegal per se under the antitrust laws, granted the government's motion for summary judgment, accepting as true the defendants' proffer of proof. on november 7, 1949, ..... united states v. united states gypsum co., 333 u. s. 364 , reversed dismissal of the government's suit to restrain violations of the sherman act through uniform patent-licensing agreements containing price-fixing provisions, appellees ceased paying royalties to appellant under those agreements; and they made no further payments until after new agreements without price-fixing provisions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 1957 (FN)

United States Vs. Union Pacific R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-08-1957

..... followed by the stock-raising homestead act of 1916, 39 stat. 862, which reserved all minerals to the united states while providing for the granting of surface patents. significantly, in the comprehensive mineral leasing act of 1920, 41 stat. 437, congress did what it had not done in 1866 -- it set forth a ..... in the act of march 3, 1909, 35 stat. 844, which permitted agricultural entrymen on public lands subsequently found to contain coal deposits to obtain patents to the land, with coal rights reserved to the united states. the novelty of thus separating surface ownership from ownership of the subsoil was made plain ..... mineral rights had not been included in the fee, the patents issued by the united states would have conveyed those rights. the legal consequence that mineral rights are embraced in a grant that conveys a limited fee governed the ..... the right of way was no longer public land, and that, consequently, the land department was "without authority to convey rights therein," and those claiming under government patents "acquired no interest page 353 u. s. 131 in the land within the right of way." see supra, p. 353 u. s. 124 . if ..... , after the road was constructed, begun page 353 u. s. 124 adverse possession of part of the right of way, and had subsequently obtained homestead patents to the section of land over which the road passed. mr. justice white began the court's opinion by stating: "at the outset, we premise that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1957 (HC)

Sardar Kapur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-1957

Reported in : AIR1957P& H173

..... is merely advisory, made by the court in exercise of its consultative jurisdiction and is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent'.49. in another madras case chandanmull and co. v. mohanlal mehta, air 1953 mad 727 (z33), it was held that it is only a ..... final and preliminary judgments thus defined all other decisions are 'orders' and they do not come within the description of judgments under the relevant clause of the letters patent'.47. the bombay high court in jamnadas prabhudas v. commr. of income tax, bombay city, ilr 1953 bom 549: (air 1952 bom 479) (z31), ..... judicial opinion was pointed out but the meaning of the word 'judgment' within clause 15 of the letters patent was not decided. mukherjea j. observed at p. 824 (of sca): (at p. 199 of sc):''a final judgment is an adjudication which conclusively detennines ..... article'.46. in asrumati debi v. rupendra deb, 1953 sca 319: (air 1953 sc 198) (z30), an order under clause 13 of the letters patent of the calcutta high court transferring a suit from a subordinate court to the high court was held not to be a judgment. although the divergence of ..... and conferment of the jurisdiction on the federal court to that court could be taken against a 'decree or final order'. similar appeals under the letters patents of the various high courts were provided against final judgment, decree or order. if there had been no decision interpreting these words in section 205 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1957 (FN)

Fourco Glass Co. Vs. Transmirra Products Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-29-1957

..... resident,' as respects venue, are synonymous" (we pause here to observe that this treatment, and the expressed reason for it, seems to negative any intention to make corporations suable, in patent infringement cases, where they are merely "doing business," because those synonymous words mean domicile, and, in respect of corporations, mean the state of incorporation only. see shaw v. quincy mining ..... the judicial code at the time the stonite case was decided, on march 9, 1942, it is evident that that statute would still constitute "the exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement proceedings." the question here, then, is simply whether there has been a substantive change in that statute since the stonite case. if there has been such change, it ..... alleged acts of infringement there. the district court held that there had been no showing of any acts of infringement in the district of suit, and that venue in patent infringement actions is solely and exclusively governed by 1400(b), as a special and specific venue statute applicable to that species of litigation. it accordingly granted the motion and ..... is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes." petitioner, fourco glass company, a west virginia corporation, was sued for patent infringement in the southern district of new york. it moved to dismiss for lack of venue [ footnote 1 ] because, although it had a regularly established place of business in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 1957 (HC)

The Anglo French Drug Co., (Eastern) Private Ltd. Vs. R.D. Tinaikar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-13-1957

Reported in : AIR1959Bom21; (1957)59BOMLR1019

..... distinguished from a court strictly so-called.'my attention has been drawn to a decision reported in re national carbon co., incorporated : air1934cal725 , where the court held the controller of patents is not technically a court or tribunal exercising judicial functions. in my view, even though in some respects the position of the registrar of trade marks may be analogous to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1957 (HC)

Firm Ganga Ram Kishore Chand Vs. Firm Jai Ram Bhagat Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-03-1957

Reported in : AIR1957P& H293

..... . m. and g. 1 at p. 21 (i). stradling v. morgan (1560), 1 plowd. 201 at p. 204 (j), and eastman photographic materials co. ltd. v. the comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks, 1898 a. c. 571 (k).14. in interpreting the meaning and words of an expression it is useful to examine them in the light of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1957 (SC)

Lilavati Bai Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1957

Reported in : AIR1957SC521; (1957)59BOMLR934; [1957]1SCR721

..... the case of skinner & co. v. shew & co. [1893] 1 ch. d. 413. in that case the court of appeal had to consider the words of s. 32 of the patents, designs & trade marks act, 1883 (46 & 47 vict. c. 57), to the following effect :- 'where any person claiming to be the patentee of any invention, by circulars, advertisements or other .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1957 (SC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Bhopal Vs. Sodra De ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-17-1957

Reported in : AIR1957SC832; [1957]32ITR615(SC); (1958)IMLJ1(SC); [1958]1SCR1

..... lindley m.r. in 1898 found the rule 'as necessary now as it was when lord coke reported heydon's case'. in eastman photographic materials company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks (1898) a.c. 571 earl of halsbury re-affirmed the rule as follows : 'my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute now in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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