Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-16-1964
Reported in : AIR1967Mad381
..... a district court, a cross-reference had been made to the civil procedure code in the same manner as is found in the guardian and wards act or in the indian patents and designs act. however, we find in section 62(2) of the act, xiv of 1957, a cross-reference to the code of civil procedure, which ..... jurisdiction (hereinafter called a district court) and include the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a high court."clauses 11 and 12 of the letters patent confers ordinary original civil jurisdiction to the high court, over the presidency town of madras, therefore, the area of the presidency town will be a district as ..... district court. the civil procedure code, to which reference is made in the definition clause in some of the other enactments like the guardians and wards act and the indian patents and designs act already referred to, in section 2(4) gives the definition of 'district' as meaning."the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil ..... was significance in the deletion of the words high court in act xiv of 1957. he also referred to certain other enactments like the indian patents and designs act (act 11 of 1911) and guardian and wards act (act viii of 1890). in section 2(6) of the indian ..... patents and designs act, district court has been defined as having the meaning assigned to that expression by the code of civil procedure, 1908 section 4( .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-01-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad327; (1965)1MLJ406
..... of whether or not the invention involves any new inventive skill having regard to what was known or used prior to the date of the patent, courts will not grant an interim injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing his normal business activity. an interim injunction will not be granted if ..... in large number of star master ploughs 99.(5) principles regulating the grant of an interim injunction in a suit complaining of infringement of a patent are fairly well settled. the plaintiff must make out a strong prima facie case for the issue of a temporary injunction. an interim injunction will ..... he has been experimenting and inventing new patterns of ploughs as a result of his inventive genius and prolonged research and that he obtained a patent on 12-10-1960 in respect of a particular pattern of plough, having a special twist distinguishing his pattern from the other ploughs in the ..... respondent's conduct was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. the plaintiff obtained an interim injunction in 1. a. 181 of 1964, but, on an application filed by the defendant-respondent in i. a ..... the appellant filed the suit, o. 8 no. 3 of 1964 on the file of the district judge, madurai, under s. 29 of the patents and designs act, against the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent form manufacturing and selling certain patterns of ploughs on he ground that he .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-16-1964
..... must redraft its contracts to achieve the same economic results, the decision is not only wrong, but conspicuously ineffectual. i would affirm. [ footnote 2/1 ] installment of a patented, coin-operated washing machine in the basement of an apartment building without charge except that the landlord and his tenants must deposit 25 cents for every use, should not constitute ..... for above-minimum use, [ footnote 2/2 ] any such distinction of extended use payments and extended installments, even if accepted, would not justify eradicating all petitioners' obligations beyond the patent term, but only those based on use above the stated minimums; for the minimums, by themselves, being payable whether or not a machine has been used, are precisely identical in ..... " to a machine, the other petitioner, $3,300. [ footnote 2 ] all but one of the 12 expired prior to the expiration of the license agreements. the exception was a patent whose mechanism was not incorporated in these machines. [ footnote 3 ] petitioners purchased their machines from prior purchasers under transfer agreements to which respondent was a party. [ footnote 4 ] note 1 ..... of certiorari. 376 u. s. 905 . we conclude that the judgment below must be reversed insofar as it allows royalties to be collected which accrued after the last of the patents incorporated into the machines had expired. the constitution by art. i, 8 authorizes congress to secure "for limited times" to inventors "the exclusive right" to their discoveries. congress .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-08-1964
..... the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." the granting of patent monopolies under this constitutional authority represents a very minor exception to the nation's traditional policy of a competitive business economy, such as is safeguarded by the antitrust ..... therefore, that, to the majority who joined in mr. justice whittaker's opinion, the asserted distinction was simply irrelevant, since convertible, as the holder of a combination patent, could under no circumstances prevent others from making and supplying unpatented and unpatentable replacement parts for any element of the combination. the court's opinion by mr. justice whittaker ..... of the convertible automobile sold by the ford motor company that anyone selling ready-made replacement fabrics for these automobiles would be guilty of contributory infringement of said patent." thus, the court's interpretation of the knowledge requirement affords aro no defense with respect to replacement fabric sales made after january 2, 1954. it would ..... had no license during that period. respondent filed an infringement suit against petitioners, who, without a license, made and sold replacement fabrics to fit cars using the patented top structures. the patent owner (respondent's assignor) notified petitioners on january 2, 1954, that petitioners' sale of fabrics to fit ford tops would be contributory infringement. on july 21, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-09-1964
..... as to prevent others, by imitating such markings, from misleading purchasers as to the source of the goods. [ footnote 9 ] but because of the federal patent laws, a state may not, when the article is unpatented and uncopyrighted, prohibit the page 376 u. s. 233 copying of the article itself or ..... stiffel lamps had complained to stiffel on learning that sears was selling substantially identical lamps at a much lower price. the district court, after holding the patents, invalid for want of invention, went on to find as a fact that sears' lamp was "a substantially exact copy" of stiffel's, and ..... united states district court for the northern district of illinois, claiming in its first count that, by copying its design, sears had infringed stiffel's patents, and, in its second count, that, by selling copies of stiffel's lamp, sears had caused confusion in the trade as to the source of ..... for such copying, as such use of state law conflicts with the exclusive power of the federal government to grant patents only to true inventions, and then only for a limited time. an unpatented article, being in the public domain, may be freely copied, though ..... decided march 9, 1964 376 u.s. 225 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus respondent, whose design and mechanical patents are invalid for want of invention, cannot, under a state unfair competition law, obtain an injunction against copying its product or an award of damages .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-20-1964
..... relate to a wholly separate second issue involved in that case -- the validity of a license granted by general electric to westinghouse, under the patents owned by the former, to manufacture and sell lamps at prices fixed by the patentee licensor -- and have no relevance whatsoever to the issue ..... s. 488 . in addition to the unambiguous statement in chief justice taft's opinion for a unanimous court that "[t]he owner of an article, patented or otherwise, is not violating the common law or the anti-trust act by seeking to dispose of his articles directly to the consumer and fixing the ..... [ footnote 9 ] reliance is placed on united states v. general electric co., 272 u. s. 476 , where a consignment arrangement was utilized to market patented articles. union oil correctly argues that the consignment in that case somewhat page 377 u. s. 23 parallels the one in the instant case. [ footnote 10 ..... consigned were patented. page 377 u. s. 29 possession of patent rights on the article allegedly consigned has no legal significance to an inquiry directed to ascertaining whether the burdens, risks, ..... miles medical co. v. john d. park & sons co., 220 u. s. 373 , regardless of whether or not the article sold was patented. similarly, if the agreement created a bona fide agency, the consignment would be valid under the antitrust laws, again regardless of whether or not the article .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-06-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Bom70; (1965)67BOMLR234
..... . 60e of necessity records by implication the fact the his majesty in council thought it either necessary or expendient, or both , to extend the powers of the comptroller under the patents (emgergency) act, 1939, s. 3, in the manner stated in the regulation.................'clausion in l.j. has dealt with this question is some detail at p. 314:'......................... the order in ..... contained in serval clauses of the s. 3(2) to the satisfied that the attack against the validity of the sid section on the ground of excessive delegation of the patently unsutatinabe. not only is legislative policy broadly indicated in the provisions of the impurged section itself give such the detailed to the specific guidance of the rule - making that authority ..... contained inter several clauses of s. 3 (2) of the be satisfied that the attack against the validity of the said section on the ground of the excessive delegation is patently unsustainble. not only is the legislative policy broadly indicated i the preamble to the act, but the relevant provisions oft impugned section itself give such detailed and specific guidance's ..... necessary...'one of the cases cited in support of the above proposition is rex v. comptroller general of patent (1941) 2 kb 306. in that case , certain order were a passed by the comptroller general of patents regulating the rights of using an enemy = owned patent. regulations 60e of the defence (general) regulations , 1930, was framed under sub -section (1) of s. 1 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-25-1964
Reported in : 1964CriLJ723
..... circumstances to sentence the accused to imprisonment, with the result that, in my opinion, a sentence of fine of rs. 100/- would serve the ends of justice; in default of patents of fine, the accused will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. the fine would be paid within two weeks from today.15. before finally closing the judgment, a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-04-1964
Reported in : 59ITR230(Cal)
..... assessee -'(1) any property held by him under trust or other legal obligation for any public purpose of a charitable or religious nature in india;..(v) the rights under any patent or copyright belonging to the assessee :provided that they are not held by him as assets of a business, profession or vocation and no income or benefit accrues to him ..... personal rights which cannot be called either movable or immovable property. besides section 5(1) (v) goes to show that right under patents or copyrights would also fall within the description of property. it is well known that a patent is a chose-in-action and 'copyright is the sole right to produce or reproduce a work which is capable of being .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-21-1964
Reported in : AIR1964All552
..... and be heard and disposed of as heretobefore, as if this act had not been brought into force.' thus under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the act, letters patent appeals (now called special appeals) to a division bench against the decision of a learned single judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction were abolished. (it is not disputed that ..... court fee cannot be decided forthwith. let it be taken as presented today.' while his document was pending before the joint registrar, the u. p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act (u. p. act no. xiv of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the act) was enforced from the 13th of november. 1962. section 3 of the act provides as .....Tag this Judgment!