Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.25 seconds)

Agriboard International Llc vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 31 March, 2022

For the same purpose, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Agriboard International v. Controller of Patents and Designs (Agriboard International), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659, was referred to. The judgments in Avery Dennison, Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design & another, C.A. (COMM IPD PAT)- 22/2021 and Brugger & others v. Medic Aid Ltd. (Brugger)[1996] RPC 635 were relied upon to contend that if there is a long time gap between the prior art document and the invention under consideration, the invention is not obvious.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 10 - P M Singh - Full Document

Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa vs The Controller Of Patents And Design & ... on 3 February, 2023

For the same purpose, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Agriboard International v. Controller of Patents and Designs (Agriboard International), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3659, was referred to. The judgments in Avery Dennison, Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. The Controller of Patents and Design & another, C.A. (COMM IPD PAT)- 22/2021 and Brugger & others v. Medic Aid Ltd. (Brugger)[1996] RPC 635 were relied upon to contend that if there is a long time gap between the prior art document and the invention under consideration, the invention is not obvious.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Bansal - Full Document

Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... on 27 November, 2018

In support of the proposition that grant of patent by other jurisdictions, especially after considering the same or substantially similar prior art, is a material consideration, he relied on the judgments in Arthritis Relied Plus Limited v. Controller of Patents, MANU/IC/0001/2021 (especially paragraph 11); Stempeutics Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents, MANU/IC/0023/2020 (especially paragraphs 33-34); Tony Mon George v. Assistant Controller of Patents, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 116 (especially paragraphs 28-31); and Reaxa Limited v. The Controller of Patents, MANU/IC/0058/2020(especially paragraph 15).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 142 - Full Document

Dhaval Diyora vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 November, 2020

26. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions in rejoinder thereafter. Learned counsel for the appellant first addressed the issue of locus standi. He submitted that the third respondent filed the pre-grant opposition while he was employed as a patent agent by a law firm, which now represents the ninth respondent. By reference to the written arguments of the third respondent before the 29/84 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(PT)/19/2023 Controller, learned counsel submitted that the same written arguments have now been submitted by the ninth respondent. By relying on Dhaval Diyora v. Union of India, MANU/MH/1879/2020 and Pfizer Products Inc. v. Controller of Patent and Designs, 2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 19, he contended that the expression 'any person' in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Patents Act should not be construed so widely as to embrace persons, such as the third respondent, with oblique and mala fide motives. As regards the fifth respondent, he submitted that the said respondent relied on prior arts D1 to D3 and D13 before the Patent Office, whereas the said respondent now relies on D8. As regards prior art D8, he submitted that it was not dealt with in the impugned order and that the opponents cannot add to the order. With regard to the reliance placed on the prosecution history before the USPTO and EPO, he submitted that such prosecution history was not part of the record. He then referred to the consideration of the same prior arts by the USPTO and the EPO and to the fact that no opposition was lodged 30/84 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(PT)/19/2023 before the EPO.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next