Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 1,507 results (0.011 seconds)

Feb 02 2006 (HC)

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-02-2006

Reported in : 2006(3)CHN577

..... (a) of the general clauses act, 1897 it is not permissible.17. in reply, counsel for the petitioners refers me to section 21 of the patents(amendment) act, 2005 omitting the chapter concerned from the principal act. he draws my attention also to the provisions in section 6 of the general clauses ..... the matter is remitted, then the controller is under the obligation to give fresh decision, in the application according to the then section 24a of the patents act, 1970.13. he cites to me the decisions in babu dhirendra nath roy v. ijjetali miah and ors. : air1940cal423 (regarding saving of right ..... set aside and the matter is remitted to the controller.11. the position is disputed by counsel for the petitioners. according to him, even after the patents (amendment) act, 2005, doing away with the regime of grant of exclusive marketing rights, the application submitted by the petitioners for such right has not ..... .i am afraid such contention, if accepted, is bound to defeat the legislative mandate given by sub-section (1) of section 24a of the patents act, 1970 that cast on the controller an unqualified obligation to obtain a report from the examiner for the purpose of giving final decision in an ..... any report while deciding the application for exclusive marketing right.7. counsel for the petitioners argues that in view of provisions in section 24a of the patents act, 1970 the controller was under an unqualified obligation to consider the report of the examiner. it seems to me that he is right in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2006 (HC)

Dhanpat Seth and ors. Vs. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Aug-03-2006

Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)

..... the plaintiffs/petitioner is accepted, that would mean that every patentee will get injunction from the court just on filing a suit claiming therein that his product is patented and the patent has not been revoked. in other words, the court would be acting just like a rubber stamp and granting relief without application of mind.16. the above ..... if the patentee exercises his exclusive right to prevent them from doing so.17. learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners made one more submission. according to him, once a patent is registered, the patentee, complaining of infringement by filing a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, should normally be granted a temporary injunction. in support of this submission he placed ..... means adapted to be adjusted to accommodate individuals of different heights and body structure.3. according to the plaintiffs/petitioners, in the year 2005 the defendant/respondent infringed the patent by producing similar device/item and supplied it to the department of horticulture, government of himachal pradesh and some private parties. the plaintiffs/petitioners have sued the defendant/ ..... relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. the plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing patent no. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. it is alleged that the invention was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2006 (HC)

Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited Vs. United Phosphorus Limited and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-03-2006

Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515

..... air 1983 delhi 496. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bishwanath prasad radhey shyam v. hindustan metal industries : [1979]2scr757 to explain what a patent means. there cannot be any two opinions or any controversy relating to the same. the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed strong reliance on bengal waterproof limited v. bombay ..... appellate board issuing certain directions. no doubt there is some controversy between the parties that these directions relate to appointment in the context of trademarks and not in relation to patents. this question also need not be further gone into while disposing of the present interlocutory application for the reason that there is no controversy between the parties at least ..... trial or experiment only; or(b) by the government or by any person authorised by the government or by a government undertaking, in consequence of the applicant for the patent or any person from whom he derives title having communicated or disclosed the invention directly or indirectly to the government or person authorised as aforesaid or to the government undertaking ..... submissions at length were made by both the parties is the ground which had been specified in para-6 (k) which is as hereunder:the complete specification of the present patent application which was filed by the patentee-respondent no. 1 was already applied for manufacturing by the other company in india before central insecticide board, ministry of agriculture to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2006 (HC)

Microforms Inc Vs. Girdhar and Co. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-13-2006

Reported in : 128(2006)DLT238; 2006(32)PTC157(Del)

..... manufacture of things such as linoleum or wall paper. designs copyright were, thus, held to be distinguished from artistic copyright. the rights under the patent and designs act were much narrower than those given by the copyright act and in respect of such products, it was not intended that they should ..... of lords found that the legislature was drawing a distinction between the copyright act and what has been called design copyright or copyright and design under the patent and designs act. it was held that the latter is a right distinct from the former, thus, the 'design' means only the feature of ..... . it is not to protect principles of operation or inventions which, if protected at all, ought to be made the subject-matter of a patent. nor is it to prevent the copying of the direct product of original artistic effort in producing a drawing. indeed the whole purpose of a ..... has registered the subject work as a design. a practical proof of this is stated to be the letter dated 19.07.2002 issued by the patent office to the effect that 'textile design fabrics' are registrable under the designs act, 2000. certain certificates of registration of such fabric patterns have also ..... certificate relied upon and issued by the united states copyright office refers to the subject as fabric designs and not artistic works;iii) the indian patent and designs office has confirmed vide its letter dated 19.07.2002 that the subject designs being textile designs are registrable under the designs act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2006 (HC)

Universal Subscription Agency Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-18-2006

Reported in : (2007)207CTR(All)62; [2007]293ITR244(All)

..... enterprises for services rendered outside india.(b) database with the help of advance computers concerning various research products, activities, books, periodicals, corporate publications, technical reports, patents and standards for use by its foreign clients.(c) commission has been received in convertible foreign exchange which is u.s. dollar and great britain pound.3. ..... and technical knowledge. it has developed several database with the help of advance computers concerning various research projects, activities, books, periodicals, corporate publications, technical reports, patents and standards for use by its foreign clients.(c) commission has been received in convertible foreign exchange which is u.s. dollar and great britain pound.7.2 ..... and technical knowledge and has developed several database with the help of advance computers concerning various research projects, activities, books, periodicals, corporate publications, technical reports, patents and standards for use by its foreign clients and has received commission in convertible foreign exchange in u.s.dollars and u.k. pounds. the claim was ..... marketing scientific and technical knowledge and developing several database with the help of advance computers concerning various research projects, activities, books, periodicals, corporate publications, technical reports, patents and standards for use by its foreign clients was false. in this view of the matter, the principles laid down by the bombay high court in the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2006 (HC)

Md. Rafique Ahmad Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.

Court : Patna

Decided on : May-18-2006

..... the high court. the term 'interlocutory order' is a term of well-known legal serious difficulty. it has been used in various statutes including the code of civil procedure, letters patent of the high courts and other like statutes. in webster's new world. dictionary 'interlocutory' has been defined as an order other than final decision. decided cases have laid down ..... order' is a term of well-known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. it has been used in various statutes including the code of criminal procedure, letters patents of the high court and other like statutes. in my opinion, the term 'interlocutory order' in section 397(2) of the code has been used in a restricted sense and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2006 (HC)

Wyeth Holdings Corpn. and anr. Vs. Controller General of Patents, Desi ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-08-2006

Reported in : 2007(34)PTC1(Guj)

..... reposes confidence in the judiciary as it still maintains 'judicial discipline.'9. the office is directed to send this judgment and order to respondent no. 1 the controller general of patents, designs and trade marks for his attention and necessary action, which shall be placed on the record of this case.10. coming to the merits of the case, though it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2006 (TRI)

Novartis Ag Vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Decided on : Jan-25-2006

..... that this aspect of section 3(d) is against the tenets of our patents act and well established principles of jurisprudence and therefore, the said section cannot be used against the subject application.12. i do not agree ..... said that the crystal form of imatinib mesylate is an invention and not a more discovery. they further said that a discovery graduating into a patentable invention solely on the basis of efficiency defies logic and therefore section 3(d) may be unable to stand legal scrutiny. the appicant submitted ..... in bioavailability is only 30% and also the difference in bioavailability may be due to the difference in their solubility in water. the present patent specification does not bring out any improvement in the efficacy of the crystal form over the known subtances rather it states the base can ..... the application. despite full knowledge of the above fact, the applicant has chosen not to amend the application to represent the correct position. no patent can be granted on the basis of false and misleading submissions. the application should therefore be rejected.6. the applicant said that priority date is ..... paul william mainley of switzerland on july 27, 2005. in their reply statement, the applicant had requested for a hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003. they filed another affidavit affirmed by giorgio pietro massimini of switzerland.4. before discussing the grounds of opposition, it is pertinent to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2006 (TRI)

Novartis Ag Vs. Cipla Ltd.

Court : Trademark

Decided on : Jan-25-2006

..... in bioavailability is only 30% and also the difference in bioavailability may be due to the difference in their solubility in water. the present patent specification does not bring out any improvement in the efficacy of the crystal form over the known subtances rather ft states the base can ..... that this aspect of section 3(d) is against the tenets of our patents act and well established principles of jurisprudence and therefore, the said section cannot be used against the subject application.11. i do not agree ..... said that the crystal form of imatinib mesylate is an invention and not a more discovery. they further said that a discovery graduating into a patentable invention solely on the basis of efficiency defies logic and therefore section 3(d) may be unable to stand legal scrutiny. the appicant submitted ..... a polymorphic form of the known substance, imatinib mesylate. there is no enhancement of known efficacy as required under section 3(d) of the patents act.moreover the present specification states that all the inhibitory and pharmacological effects are also found with the free base, or other salts thereof.10. ..... paul william manley of switzerland on august 5, 2005. in their reply statement, the applicant had requested for a hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003. they filed another affidavit affirmed by giorgio pietro massimini of switzerland on september 22, 2005.4. before discussing the grounds of opposition, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2006 (TRI)

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court : Trademark

Decided on : Jan-25-2006

..... the appicant that this application claims a new substance. it is only a new form of a known substance. it is found that this patent application claims only a new form of a known substance without having any significant improvement in efficacy. even the affidavit submitted on behalf of the ..... in bioavailability is only 30% and also the difference in bioavailability may be due to the difference in their solubility in water. the present patent specification does not bring out any improvement in the efficacy of the crystal form over the known subtances rather it states the base can be ..... and hence not obvious to a person skilled in the art.10. i do not agree with the contentions of the applicant that the 1993 patent discloses only the free base for the reasons stated in the grounds of previous publication and i conclude that the opponent has reasonably succeeded in ..... . hence the claims of the present application stand anticipated by prior publication.6. the applicant argued that compared to the disclosure made in the 1993 patent, the present invention involves two fold improvement over the prior art -(i) the imatinib free base has been chemically changed into a salt form ( ..... dr. paul william manley of switzerland october 31, 2005. in their reply statement, the applicant had requested for a hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003. they filed another affidavit affirmed by giorgio pietro massimini of switzerland.4. before discussing the grounds of opposition, it is pertinent to briefly .....

Tag this Judgment!


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