Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-2005
Reported in : (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)
..... material to show that the manufacturing and marketing the product impugned under licence is only by adopting us patent and japan patent, and (ii) the patent documents, containing 10 preparation examples, would not show the cream product. as such, the conclusion, arrived at by the learned single judge, was not on the ..... view, has committed another error, in concluding that the first respondent company is manufacturing and marketing the product under the trade mark nadiderm, only on the basis of us patent and japan patent and not on the basis of admixture composition of the appellant. this conclusion, in our opinion, is also wrong for two reasons, namely, (i) there is no ..... by the drugs controller general for nadiderm to the first respondent was not on the basis of the admixture composition of the appellant, but was only by adopting us patent and japan patent; that though a challenge to the manufacturing licence at the instance of the appellant has been made before the delhi high court in the writ petition, the appellant ..... . this emr certificate confers an exclusive right on the appellant to sell and distribute in india the pharmaceutical composition, containing benzoquinoliziness, namely, nadifloxacin 1% cream under the provisions of the patents act, 1970.(v) in the meantime, hetero drugs limited, first respondent herein, applied to the drugs controller general of india, for manufacturing licence, to manufacture nadifloxacin 1% cream, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-08-2005
Reported in : 2006(32)PTC473(Mad)
..... that the manufacturing and marketing licence granted for nadiderm is not on the basis of the admixture composition of the applicant but is only by adopting the us patent and japan patent, i am convinced that the first respondent cannot be injuncted from manufacturing and marketing the nadiderm on the strength of the manufacturing licence given by the drugs controller ..... for the second respondent and mr. k.m. santhanagopalan, learned counsel for the third respondent.6. the respective learned counsel had elaborately argued on the law of process patent, product patent as well on the manufacturing licence including the grant of emr. on a similar challenge, a learned single judge of this court in the decision in 'nevertis ag and ..... -formulation-domestic business in the applicant company needs a reference. it is seen from the said affidavit that the preparation of nadifloxacin 1% cream is different from process us patent. on the other hand, it is the specification of the first respondent company that the first respondent company had been given the manufacturing and marketing licence for nadifloxacin 1% ..... nadifloxacin 1% cream under the trade mark nadiderm. the drugs controller general granted manufacturing and marketing licence to the first respondent company for nadifloxation 1% cream based on us patent by an order dated 14.9.2004. pursuant to the order of the drugs controller general, the first respondent company started manufacturing and marketing nadifloxacin 1% cream.4. questioning .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-08-2005
Reported in : (2006)1CALLT601(HC),2006(1)CHN487,2006(32)PTC243(Cal)
..... characteristic of his lordship's speeches, and relevant portions of which are quoted below :the right of property in a trade mark had special characteristics. one, which it shared with patents and with copyright, was that it was a monopoly, that is to say, it was a right to restrain other persons from using the mark. but it was an adjunct ..... trade mark by expunging the mark 'yorkshire relish'. basically on those facts a question arose whether the company is a person aggrieved within the meaning of section 90 of the patents act, 1883. justice chitty held that the company had the locus standi in view of the fact that they carried on a rival business in the same class of goods .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-08-2005
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
..... to a division bench. the preliminary objection is overruled.'we are of the view that the same will apply in this case. unlike letters patent appeals, an order passed in exercise of original jurisdiction by a single judge is appealable under section 5(i) of the high court act. ..... following categories of judgment are excluded from the appealable judgments under the first limb of clause 10 of the letters patent:1) a judgment passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a ..... apex court followed the judgment in shah babulal khimji v. jayaben d. kania : 1scr187 and held that the word 'judgment' used in letters patent should receive a wider or more liberal interpretation than the word 'judgment' used in the code of civil procedure. the court held as follows:'10...the ..... bombay high court in anand issardas motiani and ors. v. virji raisi air 1984 bombay 39, while considering the maintainability of appeal under letters patent (bombay) act against order passed under section 24 cpc, held that even though only judgments are appealable and an order passed by the single ..... high court in jagatguru shri shankaracharya jyotish peethadhiswar shri swami swaroopanand saraswati v. ramji tripathi and ors. : air1979mp50 is also under clause 10 of letters patent (m.p.) act wherein appeal will lie only against 'judgment' which involves final determination of some right or liability of the parties. in all these .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-29-2005
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)414
..... v. i.a.e.c. (pumps) ltd. : 232itr316(sc) has held that where under the agreement with the foreign company the assessee was granted a licence to use its patents and designs exclusively in india and the agreement was for a duration of ten years with the parties having option to extend or renew the agreement, the agreement clearly established .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-06-2005
Reported in : 2006(32)PTC391(Del)
..... .2005 has been misconstrued by the petitioner. this is indeed unfortunate and regrettable since it was in the nature of a consent order. i had directed the controller general of patents, designs and trademarks, new delhi to dispose of the proceedings pending before it on or before 16.11.2005. thereafter i had taken note of the pendency of a civil .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-17-2005
Reported in : (2007)1CALLT290(HC),2006(3)CHN188,2006(33)PTC434(Cal)
..... 40. it is true that publication has not been defined in the 2000 act. yet, for reasons discussed above, mere publication of design specifications, drawings and/or demonstrations by the patent office of the united kingdom, or for that matter, any other foreign country, in connection with an application for registration, would not, in itself, amount to publication that would ..... , a material totally different in composition, nature, fragility, durability and look from leather, rexin or even plastic, in itself, involves inventive ingenuity.35. in the case of gammeter v. patents. design controller, reported in air 1919 cal 887, relied upon by mr. sudipto sarkar appearing on behalf of the appellant, division bench held as follows:.was the 'novelty' band for ..... publication. however, regarding the authenticity of the document which is downloaded from the internet, i am of the view that since document is downloaded from the official website of uk patent office, it should be taken as authentic. any person can take copies of the said document from the said office. moreover, on visual comparison of the uk registered design ..... in the united kingdom.16. in the proceedings before the respondent no. 1, the appellant questioned the admissibility of the materials alleged to have been downloaded from the united kingdom patent office website, in evidence, in the absence of any corroborative evidence regarding the authenticity of the same.17. it was emphatically argued that the german company did not apply .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Decided on : Jul-28-2005
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Ahd.)818
..... and vbc, (ix) the learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that section 32 of the act so amended inter alia, provides for the depreciation in respect of 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 last day of april, 1998, ..... building, machinery, plant or furniture. the act amends this section to widen its scope by providing that depreciation will also be allowable in respect of intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-mark, licenses or franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, acquired on or after the 1st day of april, 1998. the act also ..... how, software methodology or technology whatsoever for the purpose of and/or relating to the manufacturing, selling, supplying, marketing or distributing of the same whether or not the same is patented or proprietary or otherwise. (iv) the covenant shall be interpreted in the widest possible commercial sense and shall be observed, in letter and in spirit. the parties hereto have ..... vbc. this commercial right is in the nature of the intangible assets mentioned in section 32 of the act. section 32 provides for depreciation in the respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets. the term 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-13-2005
..... , 271(e)(1) leaves adequate space for experimentation and failure on the road to regulatory approval: at least where a drugmaker has a reasonable basis for believing that a patented compound may work, through a particular biological process, to produce a particular physiological effect, and uses the compound in research that, if successful, would be appropriate to include ..... ., at 665 669 (declining to limit 271(e)(1) s exemption from infringement to submissions under particular statutory provisions that regulate drugs). this necessarily includes preclinical studies of patented compounds that are appropriate for submission to the fda in the regulatory process. there is simply no room in the statute for excluding certain information from the exemption on the ..... further proceedings.[ footnote 5 ] id. , at 872. judge newman dissented on both points. see id. , at 874, 877. the panel unanimously affirmed the district court s ruling that respondents patents covered the cyclic rgd peptides developed by petitioner. id. , at 868 869; id ., at 873, n. 7 (newman, j., dissenting). we granted certiorari to review the court of ..... opinion reflects that nci filed an ind for emd 121974 in 1998. 331 f. 3d, at 874 (newman, j., dissenting). b on july 18, 1996, respondents filed a patent-infringement suit against petitioner, scripps, and dr. cheresh in the district court for the southern district of california. respondents complaint alleged that petitioner willfully infringed and induced others to infringe .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Decided on : Aug-25-2005
Reported in : (2005)279ITR41(Ahd.)
..... which amounts to giving compensation to a retiring partner and the term has been used as goodwill. this does not signify acquisition of any know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks etc. or any business or commercial right of similar nature. in these circumstances, me amount of so-called goodwill is consideration paid for retirement of ..... one. the assessee has nowhere established that it has acquired any know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-markets etc. what it has paid for, simplicitor is an amount as a consideration for retirement of one partner, shri oni ahesan husein lokhandwala, as goodwill, ..... shall be pertinent here to mention that (he legislature has inserted a fiction, by which, specified intangible assets, are held to depreciate and allowance is given therefor. know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks etc. are sometimes assigned different names, therefore, by using me word "similar nature", the legislature has restricted me scope of intangible assets similar to the specified ..... following requirements for allowability of claim. *the intangible assets have not been defined in the act, but a sort of descriptive items have been given such as know-how, patents, copy rights trade marks, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature being intangible assets. this can be interpreted as the intangible assets known .....Tag this Judgment!