Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: product patent Page 1 of about 42,876 results (0.061 seconds)

Mar 19 2008 (HC)

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

..... an expert's affidavit.44. learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the amendments to the act brought into force in 2005, for the first time, ushered a regime whereby product patent is permissible in respect of pharmaceuticals and drugs. parliament consciously enacted and added, to the pre-existing requirements of every claim, the disclosure of non-obviousness and the necessity of ..... the transition period of 10 years for developing countries expired on 31st december 2004, in terms of the trips agreement, so as to extend product patent protection for inventions in the fields of food, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. the patent (third) amendment also provided for deletion of provisions relating to exclusive marketing rights (which became redundant) and sought to streamline the system by having ..... was contended next by dr. singhvi that the amendments to the act deleted section 5 of the act, which had specified that only methods or processes of manufacture are patentable for certain inventions, so as to allow product patent protection in all fields of technology including areas of foods, medicines and drugs. the compulsion for amendments to the act was primarily to introduce ..... information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge;j) the drug was known or is at best a pre-1995 derivative of an invention for which no product patent can be granted in india as it does not have any added efficacy.13. the defendant also adverted to the alleged non-working of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2007 (HC)

Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. A.i. Chopra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599

..... filed a suit for declaration that the defendant no. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'gswr and spiral lock systems bearing patent nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.by way of consequential relief, the plaintiff ..... infringement was proved by the very fact that the defendant had participated in the tender, has got two tenders allotted and has promised to supply to the railways the product which imitates the patented product, and in the result, has infringed rights of the plaintiff under section 48. according to plaintiff, once the right is so established, prevention of breach can be ..... of damages being available and availed.16. limited questions, that arise for consideration, are:(a) whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie strong case of existence of patented product in its favour, and can file a suit for injunction to prevent infringement and recurring breach?(b) has plaintiff prima facie demonstrated that there is infringement by defendant no. 1 ..... , license and consequent indemnity.9. sum effect of these stipulations, which are important covenants in the contract, is that if the defendant no. 1 is using the patented system or selling the patented product of the manufacturer named in the tender or otherwise, the liability in relation to all statutory obligations would be that of the defendant no. 1, and defendant no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 2004 (HC)

Novartis Ag and anr. Vs. Mehar Pharma and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)

..... all others and in negation of any public health or public interest considerations. it is material to note that an emr grantee enjoys such an unfettered monopoly, even though its product patent application is pending and may be rejected after 1st january 2005 whenever examined. even distribution through channels of charity is hit by the anti-competitive and monopolistic effects of the ..... granted for a medicine or a drug. old section 5 was renumbered as section 5(1) and sub -clause (2) was added by the patents (amendment) act, 1999 and product patent for a medicine or a drug can now be applied for and it may be granted under section 5 (2) in the manner provided under chapter iv (a).5. the ..... granted for an industrially useful invention, which is novel and not part of the public domain. once granted a patent confers on the patentee, the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale or importing the patented product in india. no product patent for a medicine can be granted under the law at present, although an application may be filed.16. whilst ..... ) read with section 13 that the question of 'anticipation by prior publication' arises for consideration.(e) in the case of product patents for a medicine or a drug, section 5 (2) contains a non obstinate clause and stipulates that the claim for patent shall be dealt with in the manner provided in chapter iv (a). the first part of section 24 (a) prohibits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2007 (HC)

Fdc Limited and ors. Vs. Sanjeev Khandelwal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2007(3)139; 2007(35)PTC436(Mad)

..... granted in cases where no evidence or proof of infringement has been filed by the plaintiff;vi) in patent cases, the trial court has to carefully note the distinction between a product patent and a process patent. if the plaint alleges violation of process patent, then ex parte injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiffs have adduced the evidence of an independent ..... scientist/other technical expert who has tested the plaintiff's and defendant's product and arrived at an independent finding as to the ..... expeditiously as possible, taking into consideration of the material evidence to be adduced by both the parties as to the prior user of the combination of the medical product and alleged infringement of patent and trade mark etc., 29. considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, i am of the view that the following guidelines may be taken ..... through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used; provided that the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from him firs proves that the product s identical to the product directly obtained by the patented process. in considering whether a party has discharged the burden imposed upon him as above, the court shall not require him to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2007 (HC)

K. Ramu Vs. Adyar Ananda Bhavan and Muthulakshmi Bhavan

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2007(1)352; (2007)2MLJ907; 2007(34)PTC689(Mad)

..... indian sweets, where browning of sweets does not occur. then the plaintiff and his daughter filed an application for product patent on 28.7.2004. after examining the application for process patent and product patent, registration certificate was issued for both process patent and product patent on 5.12.2005 under no. 193899 and on 1.5.2006 under no. 200285 respectively. 5. the ..... and this judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.12. the learned senior counsel has submitted that the plaintiff has been issued with patent registration certificate for both process patent and product patent and in such circumstances a prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff. he refers to 2j, 2ja, section 48, section ..... filed the above suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's process patent and product patent by making or selling products made with the patented process and also from making or selling sweets made with fructose by violating the registered product patent plaintiff also prayed for the destruction of all the materials and implements used by the defendant for ..... may be their men, agents, servants, successors-in-business, legal representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicant's product patent under no. 200285 by making, using, selling or offering for sale of sweets made with fructose/levulose or in ant other manner violating the said registered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2010 (HC)

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

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6

..... to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. the plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as product patent involving the manufacturing process of the mirror which is registered as patent no. 190380 dated 8th may, 1995 granted on 12th march, 2004 in respect of 'a mirror with no copper layer and process for manufacturing ..... anr. 2005 (30) ptc (bom) (paragraph 24).ii) stressing the argument that an interim injunction ought not be to granted in the face of lack of commercial use of the patented product, the judgment in v. manioka thevar v. star plough works air 1965 mad 327 has been referred, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below:5. ...an interim injunction will ..... the court for the grant of injunction which is stated as under:notwithstanding the above, assuming that the plaintiff held a valid patent for the product which has been subject matter of the suit for infringement, the grant of such patent to the plaintiffs will not ipso facto entitle them to an interim injunction if the defendant is able to satisfy the court ..... defendants as the plaintiff is only trying to cease/pause the defendants' manufacturing by relying on their invalid patent in the meantime using the vacuum in the market to bring an inflow of their patented product and since the defendants are not infringing the impugned patent of the plaintiff, this is not a fit case for grant of injunction.31. during the hearing of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2011 (HC)

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

Court : Delhi

..... so as to prejudice the defendants. under the patents law a patent can be obtained either in a product and/or in a process. claims nos.1 to 8 in the suit reflect product patents; whereas claim nos. 9 to 20 are the process patent. by adding tin in the product claim no. 1, the plaintiff is trying to ..... expand its monopoly even in a product having layer of tin by way of such amendment, which is not ..... least one paint layer covering said silver coating layer."4. the process of manufacturing the above referred product, as mentioned in claim no. 1, had also been patented and details of the same have been provided in the registered patent, a certified copy whereof has been placed on record along with the plaint. relevant claim nos. ..... 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 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2008 (HC)

Indian Network for People Living with Hiv/Aids, Rep. by Its President ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36

..... after the passing of the said amendment act. the petitioners objected that any product patent application in respect of an invention which was in public domain prior to 1995 must therefore be rejected on the grounds that the subject matter of invention lacks novelty.4. ..... product patent regime by 2005. prior to the patents (amendment) act, 2005 the said act only granted patents for processes but not for products. therefore, the petitioners' contention is that all inventions relating to products that were disclosed prior to 1995 were in the public domain, and remains so even today, even ..... herein after referred to as the 'said act). in the said application it was contended by the petitioners that the indian patents (amendment) act, 2005 was passed to make the said act compliant with the obligations under trips. trips, signed in 1995, required india to effect a product patent regime after ten years. from 1995, it became clear that india would adopt a ..... 1908 in respect of certain matters. those matters are as follows:(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;(e) awarding costs;(f) reviewing his own decision on application made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2007 (SC)

Hetero Drugs Ltd. Vs. Wockhart Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : LC2007(1)403

order1. this application has been filed on behalf of the appellant submitting that in view of the subsequent developments, the interim order made on april 05, 2006 ought to be vacated. it is submitted that the aforesaid interim order was passed in view of the fact that the respondents had been granted exclusive marketing rights (emr) in respect of the product in question. the aforesaid emr in terms provided that it shall continue to be in force for a period of five years or till such time as the application for product patent is granted or refused. i.a. no. 3 in c.a. no. 1970/2006.... (contd.)2. it is not disputed before us that by order dated 18th may 2006, the application made by the respondents for grant of product patent had been refused. the said order was challenged before the high court of bombay and by order dated 16th january 2007 prayer for interim relief was refused by the high court. in this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the interim order of april 05, 2006 granting limited interim relief ought to be vacated in view of the subsequent developments. accordingly, the said interim order is vacated. however, in case the respondents succeed before the high court, it shall have liberty to apply before this court for appropriate directions.3. the application is allowed accordingly.

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2011 (HC)

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

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)

..... or claim there is a whisper about this dosage and the potency of the dosage. the reason being if they had only mentioned this dosage, it would have attracted a product patent as applicable to a dosage form and, therefore, deliberately they have omitted to mention the said term in the specification or in the claim with the intention of getting a ..... no such distinction in the indian law. however, the said right is subject to the limitations imposed under section 5 of the act. the 1911 act did not provide for product patent at all as it was confined only to manner of new manufacture. in so far as india is concerned prior to the amendment of the act, what is ..... intended for use or capable of being used as food, medicine or drug or substances prepared or products manufactured by chemical process, patent was not granted in respect of claims for the substance themselves. a product patent was available even under the 1970 act in respect of products failing outside the scope of section 5. it is only a substance such as food, medicine or ..... inventor becomes entitled to prevent others from performing his invention except by his licence.40. the object of patent law is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress. grant of exclusive privilege to own, use or sell the method or the product patented for a limited period, stimulates new inventions of commercial utility. the price of the grant of the monopoly .....

Tag this Judgment!


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