Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Bts Research International Pty Ltd ... vs The Controller General Of Patents & ... on 3 April, 2025
cites
Article 53 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 117 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Article 27 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. vs Monsanto Technology Llc And Ors. on 11 April, 2018
17. The decision cited in Monsanto Technology LLC (Supra) is also
distinguishable and inapposite. The said decision dealt with seeds.
11
Monsanto has specifically claimed a manmade DNA construct which did not
exist in nature but by virtue of such DNA being inserted into plants, the
same could form a trait of insect tolerance and continue into future
generations. The extent of human intervention as enumerated in the subject
invention is of a different extent and the two cannot be equated.
Novartis Ag vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013
9. The Chapter has the Heading "Inventions Not Patentable" and section 3 has
the marginal heading "What are not inventions. "As suggested by the
6
Chapter heading and the marginal heading of section 3, and as may be seen
on a perusal of the same, it puts at one place provisions of two different
kinds: one that declares that certain things shall not be deemed to be
"inventions" [for instance clauses (d) & (e)]; and the other that provides that,
though resulting from invention, something may yet not be granted patent
for other considerations. (for instance clause (b) [Novartis AG v. Union of
India, (2013) 6 SCC 1]
Oyster Point Pharma Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs ... on 26 July, 2023
In Oyster Point Pharma Inc vs. The Controller of Patents
and Designs Anr. MANU/WB/1544/2023, it has been held as follows:
Speaking Roses International Inc. vs Controller-General Of Patents And Anr. on 12 February, 2007
The overall
degree of human intervention in the process has to be taken into
consideration. As such, the totality of human intervention and its impact or
the results achieved is what is required to be determined. Thus, an invention
has to be judged as a whole. (Sakata Seed Corporation vs. The Controller of
Patents and Design, Order dated 19.7.2024 in CMA (PT) No.30/2023, Madras
High Court, Speaking Roses International Inc. vs Controller-General of Patents
9
& Ors MANU/MH/0194/2007 and Monsanto Technology LLC vs The
Controller of Patents & Designs & Anr. 2013 SCC Online IPAB 106).
Monsanto Technology Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 8 February, 2023
The overall
degree of human intervention in the process has to be taken into
consideration. As such, the totality of human intervention and its impact or
the results achieved is what is required to be determined. Thus, an invention
has to be judged as a whole. (Sakata Seed Corporation vs. The Controller of
Patents and Design, Order dated 19.7.2024 in CMA (PT) No.30/2023, Madras
High Court, Speaking Roses International Inc. vs Controller-General of Patents
9
& Ors MANU/MH/0194/2007 and Monsanto Technology LLC vs The
Controller of Patents & Designs & Anr. 2013 SCC Online IPAB 106).