Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 2013 Page 7 of about 2,372 results (0.013 seconds)

Aug 30 2013 (HC)

Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Star India Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-30-2013

..... act. in fact, in bonito boats v. thunder craft boats, 489 us 141.the united states supreme court considered a similar question of pre-emption under patent law. in holding that the protection sought to be granted by the state law was pre-empted by federal law, the court held as follows: a ..... but a mainspring of the economy. the legislator has recognized that there should be exceptions. it has laid down the rules for these: the laws of patents, trademarks, copyrights and designs have all been fashion for the purpose. each of them have rules for their existence each has their own justification. it is ..... and designs act, as well as section 46 (5) of the uk copyright act, 1956 (repealed) and section 171 (2) of the uk copyright designs and patents act, 1988).44. as a result of the above discussion, it is held that the rights claimed by the plaintiffs, over and above the broadcasting rights, i ..... insuperable. we are to fao(os) nos.153, 160 & 161/2013 page 18 suppose that the court meant to create a sort of common-law patent or copyright for reasons of justice. either would flagrantly conflict with the scheme which congress has for more than a century devised to cover the subject-matter... ..... bar. the difficulties of understanding it otherwise are insuperable. we are to suppose that the court meant to create a sort of common-law patent or copyright for reasons of justice. either would flagrantly conflict with the scheme which congress has for more than a century devised to cover the subject-matter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2013 (FN)

Already, Llc Vs. Nike, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-09-2013

..... the licensees counterclaim as moot. we reversed, finding the contro- versy still live because the licensees continued to manufactur[e] and sell[ ] additional articles claimed to fall under the patents, and the patent holders continued to demand[ ] . . . royalties for those products. id., at 364 365. here of course the whole point is that already is free to sell its ..... a result, larger companies with more resources will have standing to challenge the intellectual property portfolios of their more humble rivals not because they are threatened by any particular patent or trademark, but simply because they are competitors in the same market. this would further encourage parties to employ litigation as a weapon against their competitors rather than ..... invalid trademark. brief for petitioner 33 34. according to already, allowing nike to unilaterally moot the case subverts the important role federal courts play in the administration of federal patent and trademark law. id., at 40. it allows companies like nike to register and brandish invalid trademarks to intimidate smaller competitors, avoiding judicial review by issuing covenants in ..... property pro- fessors as amici curiae 3 (suggesting that standing extends to all participants in that field ); brief for public patent foundation as amici curiae 12 ( [t]he public has standing to challenge the validity of any issued patent or registered trademark in court ). under this approach, nike need not even have threatened to sue first. already, even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2013 (HC)

Smt Champa and ors Vs. Roop Lal

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Sep-13-2013

..... the indian trusts act, 1882 (act no. ii of 1882), the companies act, 1956 (act no. i of 1956). the designs act, 1911 (act no. ii of 1911) or the patents act, 1970 (act no. 39 of 1970) is pending, may with the sanction of the chief justice, obtain the assistance of one or more other judges for the hearing and ..... the indian trusts act, 1882 (act no. ii of 1882). the company act, 1956 (act no. i of 1956), the designs act, 1911 (act no. ii of 1911) or the patents act, 1970 (act no. 39 of 1970); (vi) a reference under section 243 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (act not iii of 1955); (vii) a case or proceeding under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 2013 (HC)

Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others Vs. Shree Ram Builders and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-08-2013

..... would have been defendant who was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this court and therefore, in terms of clause 12 of the letters patent, the suit filed by the claimant on the subject matter of the arbitration, in this court against the petitioner was maintainable in this court. ..... respondents residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, this court alone has jurisdiction after petitioner obtaining leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. it is submitted that this court has rightly granted leave under section 12 and no case is made out for recalling the said order ..... , this court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition. this court has already granted leave under clause 12 of the letters patent to the petitioners in view of the fact that the property is situated outside mumbai. ? (f) mr. kamdar, learned senior counsel submits that ..... to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition. (c) mr. kamdar, the learned senior counsel places reliance on clause 12 of the letters patent which reads thus: ??12. original jurisdiction as to suits ?? and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at bombay, in ..... summons inter-alia praying for recalling of the order dated 15th march, 2012 passed by this court granting leave under clause xii of the letters patent. 3. mr.dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in support of the chamber summons made following submissions:- (a) agreement for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2013 (HC)

Lalit Shanker Vs. Smt,sunder Bai

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

Decided on : Sep-11-2013

..... . 177/2012. lalit shanker vs. smt. sunder bai // 16 // 1882), the companies act, 1956 (act no. i of 1956), the designs act, 1911 (act no. ii of 1911) or the patents act, 1970 (act no. 39 of 1970); (vi) a reference under section 243 of the rajasthan tenancy act,1955 (act no. iii of 1955); (vii) a case or proceeding under ..... the indian trusts act, 1882 (act no. ii of 1882), the companies act, 1956 (act no. i of 1956), the designs act, 1911 (act no. ii of 1911) or the patents act, 1970 (act no. 39 of 1970) is pending, may with the sanction of the chief justice, obtain the assistance of one or more other judges for the hearing and .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2013 (TRI)

Mylan (Previous Matrix) Laboratories Limited Vs. Pfizer Inc., a Us Cor ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-14-2013

..... delhi) order (no.106/2013) prabha sridevan, chairman 1. this application is for receiving additional documents pending the revocation petition filed by the petitioner herein. the petitioner challenges the patentability of patent no.196774 for a novel [6.7-bis(2methoxyehoxy)quinazolin-4-yl]-(3-ethynylphenyl)amine hydrochloride and a process for preparing the same. though the petitioner originally sought revocation on ..... the petitioner herein (who was a third party applicant in that matter) before the division bench that ??before ipab his client would be pressing the case for revocation of the patent only on the ground of non-disclosure. ? according to the respondent this application shall not be allowed. 8. the learned counsel for the petitioner mr. s. majumdar referred to a ..... how the matter came to be heard by us yesterday. 10. according to the petitioner, the grant of us221 would have had an effect on the controller for deciding the patentability of the claims relating to polymorph of erlotinib hydrochloride. therefore there was a duty to disclose the same. it is the petitioners case that the applications of the respondent which ..... for revocation. it stands on the same footing as anticipation or obviousness, no less. if anticipation and obviousness would vitiate the claim of innovation and result in revocation of the patent, non-disclosure of the information would also result in revocation. this is what the law says. if that is so, then the ratio in (1994) 4 scc( cited supra) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2013 (HC)

Perfetti Van Melle S.P.A. and anr. Vs. Om Prakash Khushwant and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-28-2013

..... incorporated vs. lokesh srivastava & anr., 2005 (30) ptc 3 (del.) this court has observed that time has come when the courts dealing in actions for infringement of trademarks, copy rights, patents etc., should not only grant compensatory damages but also award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity out of lust .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2013 (HC)

Soci??t?? Des Produits Nestl?? S.A. and anr. Vs. N.D. Sharma and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-08-2013

..... incorporated vs. lokesh srivastava & anr., 2005 (30) ptc 3 (del.) this court has observed that time has come when the courts dealing in actions for infringement of trademarks, copy rights, patents etc., should not only grant compensatory damages but also award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity out of lust .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2013 (SC)

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-21-2013

..... of 1993, wherefrom the said letters patent appeal arose. the said writ petition had been filed by the respondents to challenge the award dated 21.5.1992 rendered by the labour court, sangli, in a group reference ..... j.civil appeal no.2565 of 2006 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by a division bench of the bombay high court in letter patents appeal no.184 of 2005, as well as the judgment and order dated 14.9.2004 passed by a single judge of that high court in writ petition no.2699 ..... said letters patent appeal. being aggrieved by this order of the division bench as well as of the learned single judge, this appeal has been filed. leave was granted in this matter on ..... upto the date of death of these workmen within three months from today. 13. it is this order which was challenged in the letters patent appeal. the division bench, however, took the view that a letters patent appeal was not available against an order passed on the wirt petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india, and therefore dismissed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2013 (HC)

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg Vs. Premchand Godha and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-16-2013

..... of solvin cold , solvin cough syrup on 1st april 2011 and solvin on 9th april 2012. all of them were objected to by the office of the controller general of patents, design and trademarks. it is asserted that the reputation of the trademark mucosolvan has spilled over into india and the trademark is well known in india. both the plaintiff s .....

Tag this Judgment!


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