Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 969 results (0.009 seconds)

Nov 03 2011 (HC)

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-03-2011

..... in cs (os) no. 593/2007, is clarificatory in nature and does not alter the scope of invention. claim nos. 9 and 10 of the same patent specifically mention about sensitization of the mirror by tin chloride. this fact was taken note of by the single judge while allowing the amendment. clerical correction of ..... later stage. the amendment is thus allowed as being a clarificatory one and the same does not attract the proviso of sections 58 and 59 of the patent act, 1970."7. it is this order which is not only sought to be placed on record in this case but amended claim no. 1 ..... permitted. amendment in claim no. 1 as allowed in cs (os) no. 593/2007 has yet not been recorded by the patent office in its record. certified copy of patent, issued by the patent office after more than 6 months of the order dated 10th september, 2009, contains unamended claim no.1. it is this ..... read as amended claim no.1 in this case. as regards permission to the plaintiff for placing on record certified copy of amended patent no. 190380 as and when received from the patent office, the same also cannot be granted at this stage. however, plaintiff is at liberty to file appropriate application as and when ..... the claim so amended as claim in the present suit;(iii) plaintiff be permitted to place on record the certified copy of amended patent no. 190380 as and when received from the patent office."2. briefly stated facts of the case, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present application, are that the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2011 (HC)

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and ors. Vs. P. Rama K ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-30-2011

1. this intra court appeal under chapter x of the letter patents act has been filed by the institute of chartered accountants of india, the council and the disciplinary committee of the said institute, ms. vandana d. nagpal, director (discipline). the main .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 2011 (HC)

Schering-plough Ltd. Vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board and anr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-2011

..... contains no reasons. apart from this, the affidavit says that they have a good case on merits and the delay was beyond their control. the patents act, 1970 gives the aggrieved party three months to file the appeal. the communication systems of today are so swift that we do not think any ..... of the act was also submitted. finally, on 05.01.2009 the 2nd respondent passed the final order under section 15 of the act refusing patent on the ground that none of the claim was novel or inventive. in the said order the 2nd respondent went beyond the objections already raised in ..... fer on 08.08.08 claiming objections 1 to 11 raised in the fer as incorrect and it also carried out some minor amendments to the patent application. thereafter, the 2nd respondent examined the amended specification under section 13(3) of the act and issued his examination report on 07.10.2008 ..... /ipab and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider on merits the appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 05.01.2009 in patent application no.2376/chenp/2006. 2. it is stated that the petitioner is a swiss pharmaceutical company having huge investments in research and development (r ..... day, the petitioner-company made a request for examination under form-18 in accordance with section 11-b of the patents act, 1970 (for short act). after the examination of the petitioners application for patent the first examination report (fer) was issued on 08.10.2007 asking the petitioner to clarify the objections raised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2011 (HC)

Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industri ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-06-2011

..... has specifically provided that the suit and counter claim to be transferred to the high court once a counter claim is made for revocation of patent, can an application for permission to place counter claim on record be rejected, only because the plaintiffs desire that the suit should be ..... has in unequivocal terms clarified that pendency of the petition shall, in no way, preclude the trial court and office of the controller of patents from dealing with respective suits pending between the parties. in that view of the matter, the contention of the respondents that the applicants are indulging ..... the case of surajmal rambux & ors. v. laxminarayan raghunath, air (38) 1951 nagpur 284, the learned counsel submits that grounds for revocation of patent and opposition to grant are different and that simultaneous proceedings are not barred in law. learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the delhi high court ..... objections of present petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the learned judge to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under section 104 of the patents act, 1970. in that view of the matter, i find that since the petitioners have a remedy under section 115 to prefer the civil ..... objections of present petitioners regarding the jurisdiction of the learned judge to entertain the suit in view of specific provisions under section 104 of the patents act, 1970. in that view of the matter, i find that since the petitioners have a remedy under section 115 to prefer the civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2011 (HC)

Nippon Steel Corporation Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-08-2011

..... the petitioners submissions. the petitioners there were in correspondence with the office of the cop in relation to the defects pointed out in their respective patent applications and had in fact made requests for oral hearing. in those circumstances, this court held that those petitioners could not be held to ..... treated as withdrawn by the applicant.provided that-(i) the applicant may, at any time after filing the application but before the grant of a patent, withdraw the application by making a request in the prescribed manner; and(ii) in a case where secrecy direction has been issued under section 35 ..... union of india168 (2010) dlt 461 adopted a realistic and practical approach and accepted the explanation offered by the petitioners as to why their respective patent applications should not be so treated. according to him, the facts of the present case were far better than the facts of those cases.16. ..... 149467 for rs. 10,000/-) returned herewith."11. on 1st february 2011 the petitioners attorney wrote to the cop giving the details of the patent application and enclosed an affidavit dated 5th january 2011 of mr. toni mon george explaining the docketing error that led to the deadline for filing the ..... on 18th january 2011 on the presumption that the amendment to the priority date would have been carried out in the office of the controller of patents (cop) since neither the petitioner nor its counsel was informed of its refusal. however, the request for amendment was not recorded in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2011 (TRI)

Denso Corporation Vs. the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Aug-19-2011

..... himself. there may be a pre-grant or a post grant opposition. then revocation. each is a separate hurdle independent of one another that the patent application has to cross. therefore the technical objection is rejected. 34. in the present case, the applicant before attending the hearing knew that the ..... . this includes that the person should know the grounds on which the matter should be decided. the controller is the person who grants the patent if the applicants is in compliance with the requirements of the act or rules made thereunder. this is the power of controller under section 15 ..... matters mentioned in section 12 and the examiner shall ordinarily make the report to the controller. under section 13, the examiner to whom the patent application is referred to has a duty to make investigation for ascertaining whether any claim in the complete specification is anticipated by a prior publication ..... . the learned counsel thereafter submitted that the appeal be allowed. 20. the two questions we have to examine are: a) whether the invention is patentable in view of citation us 6497552 b) whether the invention lack inventive step in view of us 6497552 and us 6439833 c) whether the technical objection ..... in view of us 6497552 and us 6439833. 9. the matter came before us for arguments on 28.06.2011 where shri arindham paul, patent agent appeared for the applicant. none appeared for the respondent. 10. the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the invention relates only to impellers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2011 (HC)

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-09-2011

..... in useable form. the arrangement of mixing the ground herbs is not an invention or inventive step in anyway. therefore the process of manufacturing zigbir was not patentable and the patent as relied upon in the plaint was obtained wrongly on false suggestions/misrepresentations, it being not an invention within the meaning of the act. it was not ..... filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, producing or selling of the product livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent no.186857 of 20th april 1998 in the market and for other consequential reliefs. pleadings 2. the plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the companies ..... any one acting directing or indirectly on their behalf from manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling of the products livoliv-250 by infringing the plaintiffs protected patent rights under patent no.186857 of 20th april 1998 granted a method of preparing a herbal hepatoprotective and anthiepatotoxic composition in the market throughout india and etc.) 1. the ..... plaintiff to compare zigbir and livoliv-250 using different analytical methods. these analytical methods prove beyond doubt that livoliv-250 is manufactured by misappropriating and unlawfully using the patented process of the plaintiff. chromatography is universally accepted as a process for quality control of herbs/medicinal plants and the products derived from them. three major types of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2011 (HC)

Madhu Product, Proprietor Rawat Singh Parihar Represented by His S.P.a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-02-2011

..... direction has been given to all courts in the country to proceed on day to day basis in the matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents after commencement of hearing of suit. this dicta is laid down by honble apex court in the context of order 17 rule 1(2) and ..... of the suit. as has been observed by us in the aforesaid case, experience has shown that in our country, suits relating to the matters of patents, trade marks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. this is a very ..... . the court should also observe clauses 9b) to (c) of the said proviso. in our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents the proviso to order 17 rule 1(2) of cpc should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such ..... singh chawalwala as follows: .without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. experience shows that in the matters of trade ..... ordered to be returnable by 29.10.2011 on the ground that honble supreme court has held that matters relating to trade marks. copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. it is this order of the trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 2011 (HC)

Veeplast Houseware Private Ltd Vs. M/S Bonjour International and anr

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jun-02-2011

..... containers and there was nothing unique or original in the design of the petitioner. rejecting the contention of the respondent, the court, inter alia, observed as under: "the controller of patents and designs registered the petitioners design because he must have been satisfied that the design was new and original. under section 51a of the act, it was open to any ..... and configuration and, therefore, the registration is deemed to be limited to the shape and configuration as indicated in the design which has been registered by the controller general of patents, designs and trade marks. in the case of hawkins cookers ltd (supra), registration was granted in respect of an entire tava and not in respect of the handle which the ..... is further stated that cap being used by the defendant on its water jugs is altogether different. 3. a perusal of the certificate of registration issued by controller general of patents, designs and trade marks on 10th june, 2004 would show that the plaintiff-company has been granted registration of design in respect of a water jug. the certificate would show .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2011 (TRI)

Diamond Innovations, Llc Vs. the Controller of Patents and Designs and ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : Aug-10-2011

..... , that being synonymous to the ??squash ball with blue colour ?? which enhanced visibility (surprising) during play ? , as was allowed in the said case of ??its ? , as a patentable subject matter, but not as an ??aesthetic creation ? . 16. the main issue framed during the hearing was: 1. the subject matter as claimed in the complete specification is not allowable ..... caused due to the luminosity functions discharged by the specific constructional features as selected by the appellant, for the mixed cut gemstone, defined in the principal claim 1, for ??patent ? protection of such a unique and hitherto unknown ??mixed cut gemstone ? according to the invention. 13. the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.2 ..... specification along with their observations and argued that the various constructional features of the ??mixed cut gemstone ? have been possible by adopting method or principle construction, hence its a patentable subject matter. 9. the appellant was informed by respondent 2 vide letter dated 27.4.2007 that ??the observations offered by them had been carefully considered, but this ..... diamond innovations, llc, for invention titled ??faceted mixed cut gemstone for controlled brilliance ? . 2. it is submitted by the appellant that they have filed an application for patent bearing no.1474/kolnp/2003 on 12.11.2003 for their invention title ??faceted mixed cut gemstone for controlled brilliance ? claiming priorities of the application filed both in usa 60 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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