Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.72 seconds)Section 64 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation ... vs Union Of India & Others on 24 August, 1972
Examples within this group are the Brakes India
case [Brakes India Ltd. v. Supt. of Central Excise,
(1997) 10 SCC 717] and cases where the
transformation of goods having a shelf life which is
of extremely small duration. In these cases also no
manufacture of goods takes place.
Glaverbel S.A. vs Dave Rose & Ors. on 27 January, 2010
106. All these factors need to be borne in mind while deciding the nature of
relief that is to be granted. The Defendants stand is that only a credible
challenge needs to be shown and invalidity need not be proved by the
Defendants. This is the settled law as per the judgments of this Court in
CS(COMM) 1225/2018 Page 54 of 58
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:02.08.2021
12:00:35
Glaverbel SA v. Dave Rose, 2010 SCC Online Del 308 and Tenxc Wireless and
Anr. v. Mobi Antenna Technologies, 2011 (48) PTC 426 (Del). In the present
case, however, IN'429 has gone through multiple levels of scrutiny and
examination and the orders rejecting the patent have already been set aside.
The pre-grant opposition proceedings were quite robust, as can be seen from
the various contentions raised before the Controller. Seven opponents have
opposed the grant of the patent and the Controller has considered almost all
the prior documents which have currently been cited. Thus, this Court is of
the opinion that merely on the strength of the Plaintiff's stand before the
Commissioner of Customs, it cannot be argued that there is a credible
challenge or that IN'429 is vulnerable.
Section 59 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd vs M/S Golden Chariot Airport & Anr on 22 September, 2010
Finally, it is argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Mumbai International Airport v. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SCC
422 clearly holds that a party cannot approbate or reprobate, in the context of
the fact that once the Plaintiff seeks an advantage in the payment of excise
CS(COMM) 1225/2018 Page 18 of 58
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:02.08.2021
12:00:35
and has taken a particular stand that there is no difference between the old and
new composition, a contrary stand cannot be taken for the purposes of a
patent.
Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013
86. As held in Novartis A.G. v. UOI & Ors., 2013 (6) SCC 1, Section 3(d)
does not prohibit grant of patents for incremental inventions so long as
enhanced efficacy is established. The relevant extract reads:
M/S. Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 7 May, 2015
In Servo-Med Industries v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, (2015) 14 SCC 47, the Supreme Court clearly lays down the
difference between manufacture and marketability. As per the said judgment,
change for the purpose of marketability may not always constitute
manufacture. The observations of the Supreme Court are relevant and are set
out below:
Commissioner Of Central Excise-I,New ... vs M/S S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 5 August, 2005
An illustration of this principle is brought out by the
judgment in CCE v. S.R. Tissues (P) Ltd.[(2005) 6
SCC 310 : (2005) 186 ELT 385] On facts, in the said
case, jumbo rolls of tissue paper were cut into
various shapes and sizes so that they could be used
as table napkins, facial tissues and toilet rolls. This
Court held that there was no manufacture as the
character and the end use of the tissue paper in the
jumbo roll and the tissue paper in the table napkin,
facial tissue and toilet roll remains the same.