Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.62 seconds)
Novo Nordisk A S vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 July, 2022 cites

Cipla Limited & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 November, 2015

10. The recommendations of the Opposition Board were supplied to the parties after a lapse of about four months i.e., on 16th February, 2022. The Patentee, however, was not satisfied with the said second recommendation of the Opposition Board. Thus, the Patentee filed a representation dated 13th May, 2022 seeking revision of the recommendation of the Opposition Board. Thereafter, two writ petitions came to be filed, being W.P.(C)-IPD 14/2022 titled Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India filed by the Opponent and W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2022 titled Novo Nordisk v. Union of India filed by the Patentee. In its writ petition, the Opponent sought early hearing of the post grant opposition. On the other hand, the Patentee raised various grounds challenging the recommendations of the Opposition Board. These writ petitions were disposed of by the Court on 3rd June, 2022 in the following terms:
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 22 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Novo Nordisk A S vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 June, 2022

10. The recommendations of the Opposition Board were supplied to the parties after a lapse of about four months i.e., on 16th February, 2022. The Patentee, however, was not satisfied with the said second recommendation of the Opposition Board. Thus, the Patentee filed a representation dated 13th May, 2022 seeking revision of the recommendation of the Opposition Board. Thereafter, two writ petitions came to be filed, being W.P.(C)-IPD 14/2022 titled Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India filed by the Opponent and W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2022 titled Novo Nordisk v. Union of India filed by the Patentee. In its writ petition, the Opponent sought early hearing of the post grant opposition. On the other hand, the Patentee raised various grounds challenging the recommendations of the Opposition Board. These writ petitions were disposed of by the Court on 3rd June, 2022 in the following terms:
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & ... vs Kinetic Lifescience Opc P Ltd & Anr. on 12 April, 2022

2. The said order on the representation, arises out of order dated 3rd June, 2022 passed in W.P.(C)-IPD 14/2022 titled Sun Pharmaceutical Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI W.P.(C)-IPD 19/2022 Page 1 of 23 Signing Date:08.07.2022 11:51:53 Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2022 titled Novo Nordisk A S v. Union of India. In the said order, the Court issued directions to the Patent Office in the following terms:
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Cipla Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2012

27. Thus, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cipla (supra), the Opposition Board's recommendation has to be given to the parties. Since the Opposition Board is to be constituted of three members, there is no reason whatsoever as to why the names of members of the Opposition Board should either be masked or missing from the said recommendation. As is seen in the present case, the initial recommendation of the Opposition Board did not contain the names of the members constituting the Board. Their signatures were also not visible in the document. In the final recommendations which are on record, only the name of Chairperson of the Opposition Board has been mentioned. This would be completely non- transparent and would result in proceedings being filed and challenges being made to the recommendation. Moreover, in order to preserve the integrity of the recommendation of the Opposition Board, it is necessary to ensure that the names of the members constituting the Opposition Board are clearly reflected both on the cover page and on the final page where the members should append their signatures to the recommendation. It is, accordingly, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI W.P.(C)-IPD 19/2022 Page 19 of 23 Signing Date:08.07.2022 11:51:53 directed that henceforth the ld. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) shall ensure that the names of the members constituting the Opposition Board are clearly mentioned on the cover page and the recommendations are duly signed by the members of the Opposition Board.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Novo Nordisk A/S vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2021

11. As per the above order, the Patent Office had to decide on the representation dated 13th May, 2022 filed by the Patentee within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, another writ petition being W.P.(C)- IPD 17/2022 titled Novo Nordisk A/S v. Union of India came to be filed by the Patentee on 21st June, 2022 seeking a direction to the Patent Office to decide Patentee's representation dated 13th May, 2022 before fixing the hearing in the post grant oppositions as per the order dated 3rd June, 2022 passed by the ld. Single Bench in W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2022.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S Narula - Full Document
1