Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association Vs Willowood Chemicals Private Limited
.... - (1) No amendment of an application for a patent or a complete specification or any document related thereto shall be made except by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, and no amendment thereof shall be allowed, except for the purpose of incorporation of actual fact, and no ame ...
Delhi High Court
Best Agrolife Limited Vs Deputy Controller Of Patents & Anr.
.... the representation by way of pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) keeping in mind the parameters of law by observing principles of natural justice. It is not necessary for us to examine the argument of the Petitioners that the remedy of pre-grant opposition is qualitatively different than t ...
Delhi High Court
European Union Represented By The European Commission Vs Union Of India & Ors
.... as it then stood was directory and not mandatory in nature. The Controller was held to be empowered to extend the time for a period of one month, so long it was within the overall period of three months. 31. Since the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to pursue its applicatio ...
Delhi High Court
Pharmatop Scr. Vs Controller Of Patents & Designs And Ors
.... ion of lack of inventive step -section 25 (2) (e) (pg. 269, ; 270; 274 of writ petition as filed by Petitioner in W.P.(C) 5755/2019) thus: “Therefore in light of the teachings, suggestions and predictability of the prior arts found in D1 to D10 …the impugned patent clearly does not involve and i ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Delhi Registry Cum Bench
Novertis Ag Vs Controller General Of Patens, Designs And Trade Marks And Ors.
.... tionship of the impugned Patent 276026 (corresponding US patent no. 8377921) with cited documents IN 232653 (corresponding US patent no. 7964592); IN240560 (corresponding US patent no. 7893074) and WO2001/64654 (corresponding US patent no. 7153964). Since, this document was very important and re ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Delhi Registry Cum Bench
Pharmacyclics, Llc Vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs Trademarks And Geographical Indications And Ors.
.... estion that arises is whether, if a hearing is adjourned, further evidence ought to be permitted or not prior to the next hearing. Clearly from the scheme of the Act, filing of further evidence would not be permissible after the first notice of hearing is issued. Thus, in terms of Rule 60, the h ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Delhi Registry Cum Bench
Pharmacyclics, Llc Vs Controller Of Patents, Designs Trademark And Geographical Indications Office And Ors.
.... evidence by the opponent and patentee and reply evidence of opponent under Rules 58 to 59 is completed. Rule-60 gives one more chance to the parties to produce further evidence to be left with the respondent no. 1 and 2. Once the date of hearing under Rule-62 is fixed under the scheme of the Act ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Delhi Registry Cum Bench
Shogun Organics Limited Vs Manaksia Limited
.... lear that the learned Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs has incorporated the claims and contentions put forward by the appellant and the opponents, but has not assigned any definite finding coupled with reasons in respect of the main issues involved in the instant case. We have also perus ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Controller of Patents & Designs, The Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs And Forbes Aquatech Ltd
.... ion and evidence.-The opponent shall send a written statement in duplicate setting out the nature of the opponent's interest, the facts upon which he bases his case and relief which he seeks and evidence, if any, along with notice of opposition and shall deliver to the patentee a copy of the sta ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai Circuit Bench At Mumbai
FDC Ltd. Represented By Its Joint Managing Director, Mr. Nandan M. Chandavarkar Vs Sanjeev Khandelwal And Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
.... an application the opponent will get the same priority date as the earlier application where the opponent has already filed an application for patent for an invention which includes the whole or part of the invention held to have been obtained from him, the obtained portion of the invention wil ...
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai
Get In Touch With Us
We are here to help. Want to learn more about our services? Please get in touch, we'd love to hear from you!
