Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Ucb Farchim Sa vs M/S Cipla Ltd. & Ors on 8 February, 2010

Best Agrolife Limited vs Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr. on 7 July, 2022

30. Reliance on the judgment in Ucb Farchim (supra) by the Respondents, in my view, does not enure to their advantage. A reading of the judgment shows that the issues that concern the Court in the present case, as aforementioned, were not the issues before the said Court. In case Petitioner is able to establish the pleas raised, the impugned order becomes unsustainable in law, it would be unfair to relegate the Petitioner to the long- drawn remedy of a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) or an application for revocation under Section 64 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - J Singh - Full Document

Natco Pharma Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents & ... on 12 January, 2023

17. Vide judgment dated 12th July 2022, a Coordinate Single Bench of this Court disposed of WP (C)-IPD 91/2021. This Court, in the said decision, placed reliance on the earlier decision of a coordinate Single Bench of S. Muralidhar, J (as he then was) in UCB Farchim SA v. Cipla Ltd.5, specifically for the proposition that a pre-grant opposition proceeding is in aid of the examination of the patent application. Having reproduced para 13 of the decision in UCB Farchim5, to the said effect, the Coordinate Bench proceeded to observe and direct, in paras 18 to 23 5 (2010) 42 PTC 425 (Del) Signature Not Verified W.P.(C)-IPD 2/2023 Page 7 of 68 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:15.01.2023 13:18:51 Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000268 of the decision, thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Dr. (Miss) Snehlata Gupte vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 July, 2010

74. There is yet another ground for not entertaining the plea of the W.P.(C) Nos. 3516, 3517,5422, 5423 of 2007 & 10399, 10400 & 10450 of 2009 & 1020 of 2010 page 39 of 40 Petitioner. The challenge is to an order refusing the grant of patent which is relatable to Section 15 of the Act. This is appealable before the IPAB under Section 117A of the Act as has been held by this Court in UCB Farchim Sa v. Cipla Ltd. 167 (2010) DLT 459.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Upl Limited vs Pradeep Sharma & Anr on 21 February, 2018

91 and 92 of 2008); UCB Farchim SA Vs. Cipla Ltd. & Ors. 2010 (42) PTC 425; Warner Jenkinson Co. Vs. Hilton Davis 520 U.S. 17 (1997); Jeniric/ Pentron Inc. Vs. Dillion Company (205 F.3d 1377); F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd. Vs. Cipla Ltd. FAO(OS) 188/2008 and TecXC Wireless V. Mobile Antenna Technologies CS(OS) No. 1989/2010 and Franz Xaver Huemer Vs. New Yash Engineers AIR 1997 Delhi 79.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M Gupta - Full Document

Natco Pharma Limited vs Novartis Ag And Anr on 24 April, 2024

40. It is also material to note that there is no statutory provision similar to Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which posits a statutory presumption of validity on grant of a patent. It is also relevant 6 UCB Farchim Sa v. Cipla Ltd. & Ors.: 2010 SCC OnLine Del 523 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signing Date:26.04.2024 FAO(OS) (COMM) 178/2021 Page 41 of 86 to refer to Section 13(4) of the Act, which expressly provides that the investigation required under Section 12 of the Act - the pre-grant investigations and inquiries leading to the grant of patent - does in any way warrant the validity of any patent.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Thrugh Its Power Of Attorney Holder vs (1) Eris Lifesciences Limited on 30 May, 2024

no statutory provision similar to Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which posits a statutory presumption of validity on grant of a patent. It is also relevant UCB Farchim Sa v. Cipla Ltd. & Ors.: 2010 SCC OnLine Del 523 to refer to Section 13(4) of the Act, which expressly provides that the investigation required under Section 12 of the Act - the pre- grant investigations and inquiries leading to the grant of patent - does in any way warrant the validity of any patent.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document
1   2 Next