Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 424 results (0.011 seconds)

Feb 17 1986 (HC)

Fabcon, Corporation Incorporated, in U.S.A. Vs. Industrial Engineering ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-17-1986

Reported in : AIR1987All338

..... follow necessarily that the defendant also seeks by way of a counterclaim that the patent be revoked. the defendant has not asserted in the pleadings anywhere that they are the patentee or that they are entitled to be registered as such, ..... express claim on the part of the defendant for revocation of the where of infringement is alleged by the plaintiff. that the defendant pleads that the patent set up by the plaintiff is invalid amounts only to the defendant raising a ground for the relief sought by the plaintiff being declined; it does not ..... to have raised a counter-claim and hence the suit be transferred to this court for decision as contemplated under the proviso to section 104 of the patents act, 1970. this was opposed by the defendant. the application filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court against which this revision is preferred ..... machine containing the plaintiffs invention. the amount thus found due is also sought to be recovered. in defence it is asserted that there is no valid patent held as such by the plaintiff and no relief can be had on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint subsequent to the defence being ..... is prayed at the end that the trial court be pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and the patent no. 140164 be held as invalid on the basis of the submission contained in the written statement. it is urged that since the defendant has .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1986 (SC)

Monsanto Company by their Patent Agent, De Penning and De Penning Vs. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-14-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC712; 1986(2)ARBLR19(SC); (1986)3CompLJ66(SC); 1986(1)SCALE74; (1986)1SCC642; [1986]1SCR120; 1986(1)LC304(SC)

..... as a company in india. it was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled 'phytotoxic compositions' and 'grass selective herbicide compositions', duly patented under patent number 104120 dated march 1, 1966 and 125381 dated february 20, 1970. the claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained in the specifications of ..... as contained in this marked as m.o.nos. 2 and 3. the plaintiffs also asked for an account etc. annexed to the plaint were the two specifications relating to patent numbers 104120 and 125381. in the specification relating to 'phytotoxic composition' (specification no. 104120), it was claimed : we claim :1. a phytotoxic composition comprising as an active ingredient a ..... the legend on the tins containing the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what was sold by the defendants was nothing but a reproduction of the first plaintiff's patented formulations. the formulations of the defendant were sent to shri ram institute for analysis and they were said to contain the chemical 'butachlor chemical formula for which is 2 ..... so much the plaintiffs said, and this is very important, 'the active ingredient mentioned in the claim is called 'butachlor'. it suggested, without expressly saying it that the plaintiffs' patents covered butachlor also which in fact it did not, as we shall presently see. it was next stated that the first plaintiff had permitted the second plaintiff to work the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1986 (FN)

Dennison Mfg. Co. Vs. Panduit Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-21-1986

..... commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. as indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." this description of the obviousness inquiry makes it clear that whether or not the ultimate question of obviousness is ..... -18 (1966): "while the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law, . . . the 103 condition [that is, nonobviousness] . . . lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to ..... court. in particular, petitioner complains of the rejection of the district court's determination of what the prior art revealed and its findings that the differences identified between respondent's patents and the prior art were obvious. petitioner's claims are not insubstantial. as this court observed in graham v. john deere co., 383 u. s. 1 , 383 u. s. 17 ..... so as to yield the invention in question if such a combination would not have been obvious at the time of the invention. nonetheless, the judge found that respondent's patents were invalid for obviousness. the court of appeals for the federal circuit reversed. 774 f.2d 1082 (1985). the court disagreed with the district court's assessment of the prior .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 1986 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Atlas Steel Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-10-1986

Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)73,[1987]164ITR401(Cal)

..... down by the supreme court that there must be trading activity both outside and within the taxable territory. in the facts of this case, for the supply of inventions, patents, application for patents, secret knowledge and know-how, no trading activity had been or was required to be carried on by the assessee within the taxable territory. further, on a consideration ..... the revenue was dismissed. 31. in the instant case, the agreement, as noted earlier, also consists of two distinct parts. the first part consists of supply of inventions, patents, applications for patents, secret knowledge and know-how. such supply was to be made against a consideration of a lump sum to be paid in instalments. it has been found as a ..... grant to the company the exclusive leave and licence during the term of the agreement (and the non-exclusive leave and licence thereafter) to use within india all inventions, patents, applications for patents and secret knowledge and know-how (which secret knowledge and know-how includes the information disclosed in formulae, standards, processes and technical and other data) which atlas now ..... steel and heat resisting steel. atlas steel co. ltd. was carrying on the business of manufacture of such steel and in connection with such business owned and used inventions, patents, applications for patents and had both secret knowledge and know-how relating to the manufacture of such steel contained, inter alia, in formulae, standards, processes, technical and other data owned by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 1986 (TRI)

Collector of Customs Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Dec-24-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC769Tri(Delhi)

..... with import of components, assemblies and vehicles from japan. one can understand the logic behind payment of royalty. when suzuki transferred the technical knowhow and permitted maruti to use its patents and designs, suzuki had naturally expected to be compensated for it. when the indigenisation programme of maruti progressed, import of components from suzuki would gradually go on decreasing. that would ..... , we find substance in the argument of maruti that payment of royalty/fee under the licence agreement was relatable directly to indigenous manufacture of components and vehicles to suzuki's patents, designs and specifications. similarly, use of the trade mark "maruti-suzuki" was also for marketing of the indigenously manufactured goods in india. neither the royalty nor the trade mark "maruti ..... on the board of directors of maruti. (2) licence agreement :- under this agreement, maruti acquired the right and technical knowhow to manufacture cars and their components in india to the patents, designs and specifications of suzuki on payment of lumpsum royalty of $ 24/- lakhs plus 3% running royalty. (3) purchase and supply agreement :- this agreement related to import of skd/ckd .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 1986 (HC)

Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-12-1986

Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)185,[1987]164ITR466(Cal)

..... should also be treated as revenue expenditure. (j) agarwal hardware works (p.) ltd. v. cit : [1980]121itr510(cal) . in this case, the assessee had obtained a licence for use of patents, registered in luxembourg, relating to steel wires and bars used for reinforced concrete construction against payment. it was held that the asses-see had acquired a non-exclusive licence to ..... use the patents which were terminable on a reasonable notice and that the assessee had no right to continue the use of the patents thereafter. it was held on these facts by a division bench of this court that the assessee had not acquired .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1986 (FN)

South Carolina Vs. Catawba Indian Tribe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-02-1986

..... , 3 pet. 270, 28 u. s. 277 (1830). [ footnote 19 ] see, e.g., larkin v. paugh, 276 u. s. 431 , 276 u. s. 439 (1928) ("with the issue of the patent, the title not only passed from the united states but the prior trust and the incidental restrictions against alienation were terminated. this put an end to the authority theretofore possessed ..... patents are not federal claims at all, because, "[o]nce patent issues, the incidents of ownership are, for the most part, matters of local property law, to be vindicated in local courts." 414 u.s. at 414 u ..... limitations to indian land claims. see oneida ii, 470 u.s. at 470 u. s. 240 -244. more importantly, all the cases cited by the majority involve lands for which patents had been issued to individual indians, not lands alleged to remain tribal property. this court made clear in oneida i that claims arising under such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1986 (HC)

Pramod Son of Laxmikant Sisamkar and Uday Narayanrao Kirpekar Vs. Garw ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-29-1986

Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR411

..... disclosure and divulgence of any and all informations, instrument, document, reports, statements, logs, records, correspondence, discussion, contract plans, drawings, photographs, copies, methods, trade secrets, manufacturing process, machinery know-how, layouts, patents, transaction, affairs, dealings, finances and accounts etc. of the company that may pass through or come to the knowledge of the employees, during the continuance of their employment as well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1986 (HC)

Narotamdas Trikamdas Toprani Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. L ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1986

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR649; [1990]68CompCas300(Bom)

..... lower margin as the trustees may agree, on the security comprising the net (depreciated) book value of the then existing fixed assets (excluding motor cars, vehicles, furniture and fixtures, goodwill, patents, etc.) of the company and the company doth hereby agree and undertake that in case, for any reason, such net (depreciated) fixed assets cover falls below 40% or such lower .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1986 (HC)

Shipyard Technical Staff Assn. and Others Vs. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. and A ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-25-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ266Bom

..... provides that in case the company acquires the patent as exclusive privilege it would be for a consideration fixed by the managing director. having regard to the limited class of inventions covered by this ..... unreasonable in requiring the officer to obtain the previous consent of the competent authority in regard to an application for a patent or exclusive privilege in respect of such invention or in requiring him to permit its use by the company free of charge. the rule also ..... company may take over such patent or exclusive privilege for such consideration as the managing director may fix.14. the phraseology employed in this rule leaves no doubt that it is ..... to adopt and use it without being obliged to pay any royalty or other consideration therefor. the officer may not assign, charge or transfer the patent or exclusive privilege without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority and without providing it for use by the company free of charge. the ..... meant to apply only to patents or exclusive privileges in respect of inventions made on the basis of knowledge or experience gained in the service of the company. there is nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!


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