Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.60 seconds)Patent Rules, 2003
Section 64 in Patent Rules, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in Patent Rules, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 11A in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Novartis Ag vs Union Of India on 6 August, 2007
56. The amended explanation was considered by a judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in Novartis AG v. Union of India 2007 (4) MLJ 1153. The court held that:
Franz Xaver Huemer vs New Yash Engineers on 8 March, 1996
The correct approach, of appreciating all the factors, and not merely the prima facie merits, is too well established in regard to grant of temporary injunction; specifically in the field of patent infringement, this was re-stated by a Division Bench in Franz Zaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers .
V. Manioka Thevar vs Star Plough Works, Melur on 1 December, 1964
In several judgments in India, including judgments ofThis Court , it has been consistently held that where the patent is of recent origin and its validity has not been tested, the courts should not grant injunctions where infringement is alleged; it has also been held that if the defendant alleges that the patent cannot be sustained, the injunction should be refused (See Manicka Thevar v. Star Ploro Works ; Ram Narain v. Ambassador Industries ) Surendra Lal Mahendra v. Jain Galzers 1981 PTC 112; National Research and Development Corporation of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1980 Del 132; Standipack Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. and Ors. .
Standipack Private Limited & Another vs M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. on 26 May, 1999
In several judgments in India, including judgments ofThis Court , it has been consistently held that where the patent is of recent origin and its validity has not been tested, the courts should not grant injunctions where infringement is alleged; it has also been held that if the defendant alleges that the patent cannot be sustained, the injunction should be refused (See Manicka Thevar v. Star Ploro Works ; Ram Narain v. Ambassador Industries ) Surendra Lal Mahendra v. Jain Galzers 1981 PTC 112; National Research and Development Corporation of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1980 Del 132; Standipack Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd. and Ors. .