Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.25 seconds)Section 25 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland ... vs Bdr Pharmaceuticals International ... on 30 January, 2020
For the proposition that a mosaic of prior art should not be made
based on hindsight, he referred to the judgment of the Delhi High
Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company &
Ors. v. BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Bristol-
Myers), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1700.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Farbewerke Hoechst ... vs Unichem Laboratories And Ors. on 11 July, 1968
(i) Farbewerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius &
Bruning, a Corporation and others v. Unichem Laboratories and others
(Farberwerke Hoechst), MANU/MH/0064/1969;