Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (1.80 seconds)
Documents citing Franz Xaver Huemer vs New Yash Engineers on 8 March, 1996

Novartis Ag & Anr vs Cipla Ltd on 9 January, 2015

There can be no doubt about the proposition that since the patents create a monopoly, they must be CS(OS) No.3812/2014 Page 75 of 143 commercially exploited and the parties are not to only register a patent and sit tight over it. However, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the statement of working of patents filed in the year 1998-99 to contend that the patents are being exploited and thus the present case would not fall within the parameters laid down in Franz Xaver's case (supra) to categories the patents in the present case as one which are not commercially exploited and thus leading to a conclusion that public was being denied the benefit of such patents by its lack of user. The learned Single Judge accepting this contention concluded that he was not satisfied at this stage that the five patents are not being worked by the respondent in view of the statement produced by the respondent for the year 1998-99.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 5 - M Singh - Full Document

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors vs Mr. J.D. Joshi & Anr. on 29 June, 2015

There can be no doubt about the proposition that since the patents create a monopoly, they must be commercially exploited and the parties are not to only register a patent and sit tight over it. However, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the statement of working of patents filed in the year 1998-99 to contend that the patents are being exploited and thus the present case would not fall within the parameters laid down in Franz Xaver's case (supra) to categories the patents in the present case as one which are not commercially exploited and thus leading to a conclusion that public was being denied the benefit of such patents by its lack of user. The learned Single Judge accepting this contention concluded that he was not satisfied at this stage that the five patents are not being worked by the respondent in view of the statement produced by the respondent for the year 1998-
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 16 - M Singh - Full Document

Strix Ltd vs Maharaja Appliances Limited on 20 October, 2023

46. Further, the decision in Franz Xavier (Supra), therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case as the Suit Patent was commercially exploited by the Plaintiff. Moreover, the said judgement is in the context of a temporary injunction and would have no bearing on the decision of the present suit, which is being decided post-trial. Thus, the submission that the Plaintiff has not worked its patent in India is also without merit. Conclusion on invalidity
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Anr vs Mr.D. Shah & Anr. on 29 June, 2015

There can be no doubt about the proposition that since the patents create a monopoly, they must be commercially exploited and the parties are not to only register a patent and sit tight over it. However, Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the statement of working of patents filed in the year 1998-99 to contend that the patents are being exploited and thus the present case would not fall within the parameters laid down in Franz Xaver's case (supra) to categories the patents in the present case as one which are not commercially exploited and thus leading to a conclusion that public was being denied the benefit of such patents by its lack of user. The learned Single Judge accepting this contention concluded that he was not satisfied at this stage that the five patents are not being worked by the respondent in view of the statement produced by the respondent for the year 1998-
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Singh - Full Document

Schneider Electric Industries S.A. vs Telemecanique & Controls (India) Ltd. on 27 November, 2000

The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Franz Xaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers, 1996 PTC (16)(DB) 232 is sought to be distinguished by submitting that in the aforesaid case patentee was not commercially exploiting the patents in India and consequently the public was being denied the benefit of such patents by its lack of user and this prevented a similar device from being worked or used by the market or industry. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff's products are being sold commercially and the public is not being deprived of the benefits of the patents and the aforesaid judgment cannot, therefore, be relied upon.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M Mudgal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next