Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 780 results (0.009 seconds)

Feb 08 2010 (HC)

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-08-2010

Reported in : LC2010(1)278

..... of patens rejected the application of yrdcl for grant of patents. the said order has been challenged in the present petition.41. this court heard the submissions of mr. sudhir chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and mr ..... .39. the petition is disposed of.wp (civil) no. 12006/200940. the petitioner m/s. yeda research & development co. limited (yrdcl.) has filed an application for grant of patents on 5th february 2003. the respondent natco pharma limited (npl.) filed a pre-grant opposition on 15th november 2007. by the impugned order dated 3rd march 2009 the assistant controller ..... legislature intended to have a dichotomy between 'pre- grant opposition' and 'post-grant opposition'. however, the legislature intended that there shall be only one statutory appeal against grant of patent. the legislature intended to obliterate appeal from 'pre-grant proceedings', which existed earlier. however, it was left to the executive to bring the enacted law into force vide notification. for ..... opponent an opportunity of being heard before deciding the case. therefore, at the pre- grant stage, prior to the amendment in 2005, the controller could either refuse the patent application or require the applicant to make amendments to the satisfaction of the controller and if such changes were not made as directed, he would refuse the application. therefore section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2010 (HC)

Bayer Corporation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-09-2010

Reported in : LC2010(1)242

..... is granted marketing approval. he points out that this is not the concern of the dcgi. if the drug for which marketing approval is sought is covered by a patent, and the patent holder (like in this case bayer) has already been granted approval to import or to market the drug in india as a 'new drug' (as defined under rule 122e ..... drug in question including its name, composition of the formulation, active and inactive ingredients, pharmacological classification etc. since the applicant would have to rely on the data generated by the patent holder, by granting marketing approval to cipla, the dcgi would, in fact, be not only acting in contrary to section 2 dca but would be 'abetting' the tort of ..... above mentioned writ petition praying inter alia for a writ restraining the dcgi from granting licence to cipla 'to manufacture and market, to imitate/ substitute sorafenib tosylate protected under subject patent number 215758'. a further prayer was for a direction to cipla to furnish an undertaking that the drug for which it has made an application before respondent no. 2 was ..... , sell and distribute its drug 'sorafenib tosylate', prescribed for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. facts in brief2. on 5th july, 2001 bayer corporation, appellant no. 1, filed a patent application in india in respect of an invention entitled 'carboxyaryl substituted diphenyl ureas'. on 1st january 2003 bayer corporation transferred its rights to bayer pharamceuticals corporation (bpc) and on 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2010 (HC)

Glaverbel S.A. Vs. Dave Rose and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-27-2010

Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6

..... on corrosion resistance. in particular,. franz teaches only with regard to transparent articles and does not teach anything about any reflective articles such as mirrors whereas the plaintiffs patent claims a glass/silver/paint mirror with no copper layer.. franz has no paint layer whereas plaintiff mirror has a paint layer.. franz relates to metal layers of ..... vii) farbewerke hoechst aktiengesellschaft vormals meister lucius & bruning corporation v. unichem laboratories and ors. : air 1969 bombay 255 wherein paragraph 15 it was held that to anticipate a patent, a prior publication or activity must contain the whole of the invention impugned; i.e. all the features by which the particular claim attacked is limited. in other words, ..... and the defendants are seeking recourse to a technique which is popularly known as mosiacking.g) lastly, the plaintiff counsel has pointed out several similarities between the plaintiffs patent and that of the defendants from the chart filed alongwith the written submission dated 28th march, 2009 alongwith plaintiffs comments.judgments referred by the plaintiff34. in support of ..... that the process of activation and sensitization using tin and palladium was known in the industry much before the plaintiffs claimed inventino date.f) shipley- great britain patent no. gb929799this patent talks about improved metal depositions by treating the substrate with tin chloride or another tin salt to catalyze the deposition of a desired metal coating. the tin salt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2010 (SC)

Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-29-2010

Reported in : JT2010(2)SC148,LC2010(1)101,2010(1)SCALE714,(2010)2SCC535

..... the provisions of section 51a, the full bench on a reference to sections 53 and 54 relating to piracy of registered designs and the incorporation of the provisions of the patents act, 1970, into the designs act, held that the powers conferred under section 53 were not absolute and did not contemplate an absolute right in the owner to prevent all ..... for determination before the high court in the two appeals was whether the delhi high court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the controller of patents and designs, kolkata. inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the delhi. high court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have ..... first appeals were filed in the delhi high court, being fao no. 131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th march, 2008, passed by the controller of patents and designs, kolkata, under section 19(1) of the designs act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for 'insecticide coil' in class 12 belonging to the respondent no. 1 herein. the ..... . jaya hind industries ltd. and anr. : air 1988 delhi 82, wherein it was held that rejection of an application for grant of patent under the provisions of the patents act, 1970, and the patents rules, 1972, by the deputy controller of patents and designs, bombay, gave rise to a cause of action whereby appeal against such order of refusal could be filed only in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2010 (HC)

Universidad Politechnica De Valencia Centro De Transferencia De Techno ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-26-2010

Reported in : LC2010(1)356

..... known. the second, if it is the contention of the petitioner that he has complied with the objections, can the controller hold that the patent is deemed to have been abandoned without giving a hearing to such applicant. section 21 in our opinion, would require exercise of discretion on the ..... discretionary power by the controller.-- before exercising any discretionary power under the act or these rules which is likely to affect an applicant for a patent or a party to a proceeding adversely, the controller shall give such applicant or party, a hearing, after giving him or them, ten days ..... for grant and an objection under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 is outstanding, the controller may postpone the grant of patent and allow a period of two months for removing the objection.30. amendment of the complete specification in case of anticipation.-- (1) if the applicant ..... to the proceedings there under or to give any such party an opportunity to be heard, the controller shall give to any applicant for a patent, or for amendment of a specification (if within the prescribed time the applicant so requires) an opportunity to be heard before exercising adversely to ..... inventive features of the invention are not brought out clearly especially when there are corresponding grants in other jurisdictions which follow the same canons of patent ability. according to the petitioners they were entitled to receive clear objections so as to respond in an appropriate manner. the submission is that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2010 (HC)

Neon Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Troikaa Pharma Limited, and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-26-2010

..... cannot be established against the present patent application."47 the controller does not observe in the order that the petitioners' objections to the amended specifications raise nothing new and are a repetition of the ..... as cyclodextrins, etc.. thus in no way the citations quoted by the opponent destroy the novelty or the inventive step of the invention disclosed in the present patent application.after going through the written statement of theopponent, reply statement of applicant and amendments carried out by the applicant i find that the ground of opposition ..... salts (7.5% to 10%) that is capable of being administered by intradeltoid route, over and above the intragluteal and slow intravenous route. the present patent application contemplates injectable preparation incorporating 75100 mg of watersoluble salts of diclofenac with the solvent system of at least two or more co solvents/solubilisers selected from differing ..... under:given the importance of the issues, the government undertook broadbased and extensive consultations involving different interest groups on aspects critical to the changes which were necessary in the patents act, 1970. these included countrywide interactive sessions with various interest groups, including scientists, academicians, economists, representatives of various industry sectors (such as pharmaceutical, biotech, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2010 (HC)

Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-20-2010

..... and pharmaceuticals, shall include expenditure incurred on clinical drug trial, obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any central, state or provincial act and filing an application for a patent under the patents act, 1970 (39 of 1970).](2) no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure mentioned in clause (1) under any other provision of this act.(3) no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2010 (HC)

Shelke Bevarages Private Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compani ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-29-2010

Reported in : (2010)112BOMLR1479,LC2010(1)313

..... year 2001 invented a method of producing oxygen enriched packaged drinking water and an apparatus used therefore. the said invention was fully secured by indian patent under the indian patents act 1970. patent no. 204086 was granted under the patent certificate dated 26.12.2006 to shri. rasiklal manikchand dariwal, pursuant to his application bearing no. 254/mum/2002 dated 15.03.2002. according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2010 (TRI)

The Alleppy Company Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Narayanan Venug ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Sep-03-2010

..... therefore sufficient manufacturing or trading interest of the product, particularly brushed coir mats, probably a basic version of the coir mat, may be some what similar to the one patented by the patentee, which might be termed as an advanced rubber backed brushed mats having non skid backing; nonetheless the applicants have been manufacturing coir mats and has a ..... have been manufacturing rubber backed coir mats and they have been exporting and have produced the bills of invoices, all of them dated prior to the date of the patent, which very clearly proves that the applicants have been manufacturing rubberized coir mats and it has established the manufacturing interest. as regards the trading interest, looking at the ..... relates; the word or expression ??person interested ? appears under sections 25 as well as 64 of the act, dealing with opposition proceedings to the grant of patent before the controller of patents and revocation proceedings before this appellate board. in fact the actions taking place in opposition proceeding is almost analogous and similar to the revocation proceedings before this appellate ..... exporters of coir sector. the exporters collectively and individually expressed their concern and requested the intervention of the 4th respondent to tackle the problem on account of the grant of patent to the contesting respondent. one third of 200 and odd exporters constitute those exporting the rubber backed, rubber edged, non-skid coir mats and matting and the annual .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 30 2010 (TRI)

Acme Tele Power Ltd., Vs. the Controller General of Patents and Design ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Nov-30-2010

..... the third party can never be taken as an action or the pre-grant opposition action has been in aid of the examination of the patent application. that is why the legislature has very clearly brought this proceeding under a different heading called ??an opposition proceeding ? simultaneously keeping a ..... , he may offer an opportunity of hearing to the applicant for patent and allow and direct the applicant to amend the specification to his satisfaction and in the event that the applicant does not comply with ..... the technical objections by making necessary amendments in the specification or make necessary observations to satisfy the controller that he deserves to get the patent granted based on the disclosure in the specification already made. here again if the controller is not satisfied with the observations of the applicant ..... person whose representation for pre-grant opposition has been rejected. the counsel continued that, on the other hand, since the refusal of a patent application pursuant to a pre-grant opposition would be treated as a refusal order under section 15 of the act which is appealable before the ..... a pre-grant opposition is aimed at assisting the controller in arriving at an informed decision upon receipt of all material information pertaining to the patent application. he said further that, a pre-grant opposition does not in any way alter the nature of the natural course of examination, except .....

Tag this Judgment!


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