Practice Areas
Indirect Tax Cases
Direct Tax Cases
Intellectual Property
All Practice Areas
All Courts
Filter by Jurisdiction
All Courts
SC & All High Courts
All Tribunals
+ Madras High Court33354
+ Gujarat High Court27677
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court14499
+ Patna High Court14289
+ Bombay High Court12915
+ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal9454
+ Delhi High Court8575
+ Kerala High Court7225
+ Calcutta High Court7074
+ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission6968
+ Allahabad High Court6165
+ Jharkhand High Court5158
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court5119
+ Supreme Court Of India4663
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court4194
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court4193
+ Karnataka High Court3790
+ Telangana High Court3389
+ Central Administrative Tribunal3375
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court2622
+ CESTAT2267
+ Rajasthan High Court2062
+ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1492
+ National Green Tribunal1443
+ Debts Recovery Tribunal1302
+ Orissa High Court1185
+ Gauhati High Court1163
+ National Company Law Tribunal1065
+ RERA789
+ Uttarakhand High Court740
+ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal703
+ Central Information Commission663
+ Chhattisgarh High Court553
+ Privy Council473
+ National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission433
+ Intellectual Property Appellate Board387
+ Tripura High Court255
+ Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal228
+ Armed Forces Tribunal189
+ SEBI183
+ Central Electricity Regulatory Commission164
+ Meghalaya High Court153
+ Manipur High Court142
+ Appellate Tribunal For Electricity127
+ Company Law Board119
+ Authority For Advance Rulings87
+ Authority for Advance Rulings, GST82
+ Board of Revenue63
+ Sikkim High Court57
+ Competition Appellate Tribunal55
+ Competition Commission Of India55
+ Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal54
+ Appellate Tribunal- Prevention Of Money Laundering Act43
+ Securities Appellate Tribunal43
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India42
+ Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction34
+ Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange19
+ Settlement Commission15
+ Commissioner (Appeals)13
+ Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, GST11
+ Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission10
+ National Anti-Profiteering Authority10
+ Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India7
+ Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board6
+ District Court5
+ Trade Marks Registry3
+ Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property2
+ Consumer Disputes Redressal2
+ Copyright Board2
+ Central Board of Excise & Customs1
+ Collector Appeals1
+ Railway Claims Tribunal1
+ AAR-GST0
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal0
+ Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property0
+ Board of Revenue, Rajasthan0
+ Cyber Appellate Tribunal0
+ Deputy Collector0
+ First Appellate Authority0
+ Right to Information0
Apply Filter
Court Filter
+ RBI
+ SEBI
+ Andhra Pradesh
+ Arunachal Pradesh
+ Assam
+ Bihar
+ Chandigarh
+ Chhattisgarh
+ Delhi
+ Goa
+ Gujarat
+ Haryana
+ Himachal Pradesh
+ Jharkhand
+ Karnataka
+ Kerala
+ Madhya Pradesh
+ Maharashtra
+ Manipur
+ Meghalaya
+ Mizoram
+ Nagaland
+ Odisha
+ Punjab
+ Rajasthan
+ Sikkim
+ Tamil Nadu
+ Telangana
+ Tripura
+ Uttarakhand
+ Uttar Pradesh
+ West Bengal
+ Supreme Court Of India
+ Allahabad High Court
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court
+ Bombay High Court
+ Calcutta High Court
+ Chhattisgarh High Court
+ Delhi High Court
+ Gauhati High Court
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court
+ Jharkhand High Court
+ Karnataka High Court
+ Kerala High Court
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court
+ Madras High Court
+ Manipur High Court
+ Meghalaya High Court
+ Orissa High Court
+ Patna High Court
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court
+ Rajasthan High Court
+ Sikkim High Court
+ Telangana High Court
+ Tripura High Court
+ Uttarakhand High Court
Apply Filter
Apply Filter
Judge Filter
Filter by Judge (Beta)
Judge Name
Bench
Other Filters
To
2021 Onwards76988
From 2011 To 202069252
From 2001 To 201015399
From 1991 To 20006816
From 1981 To 19904348
From 1971 To 19803524
From 1961 To 19703524
From 1951 To 19602664
Before 19508479

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

...invalid under Section 64 (1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 for lack of inventive steps and being obvious. It is urged that Example 51 of EP '226 is the closest prior art cited in the suit patent and any...person skilled in the art would be motivated to use the same as a starting point. Further EP '226 was the first patent document to disclose the use of Quinazoline derivatives for their anti-cancer...properties. The only difference between a large number of compounds exemplified in EP '226 and those exemplified in the suit patent was a mere substitution of Methyl with Ethynyl on the 3 meta position...

...taken is contrary to the Suit Patent, where the plaintiff has clearly and explicitly stated that the engagement projection (EP) is an integral part of the main circular plate (MCP). Therefore, the...principles of claim interpretation. 17.4. Claim 2 of the Suit Patent specifically limits the main circular plate (MCP) to include the engagement projections (EP...Suit Patent clearly shows that the main circular plate (MCP), which includes the engagement projections (EP), is denoted by reference numeral "241", with "242" being used...

...atoms at Positions 1 and 3. The title of the Zimmermann patent is Pyrimidine derivatives and processes for the preparation thereof. 25-3-1993 An application (EP...was filed in Europe for grant of the patent in the Zimmermann invention. In Europe it is filed in the name of the assignee and not the inventor. 2-4-1993 An application...the origin of the Zimmermann patent specification and this was published. 6-10-1993 European Patent being EP 0564409 (corresponding to later granted US Patent No. 5521184...

...present respondent) "to hold the same unto the assignee absolutely with all such powers, rights and remedies as are now subsisting thereon." The...apply S.292 and to cause the bond to be assigned to the intending plaintiff. It does not appear to be necessary to discuss the older practice under the Letters Patent of 1823, founding the Supreme Court...assignment merely deals with the question of title and confers upon the assignee a right to sue which he would otherwise not have had previously to the assignment, and that the section thus merely entitles...

...(hereinafter called “the Act”), at No. 46368-51 on May 6, 1953 with effect from December 13, 1951 as assignee of the said patent. By virtue of this patent, the plaintiff acquired the sole and exclusive....27. The true and first inventor or his legal representative or assignee submits an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Patent Office. The application must...manufacture of utensils, in 1951. The plaintiff after filing the necessary specifications and claims in the Patent Office, got the alleged invention patented under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911...

...ILR. (1948) EP 159 it was held that a right to appeal under the Letters Patent against an order passed in appeal under Section 39(1) is not restricted by Section 39(2). ...which gave rise to the dispute and “that was sufficient to invalidate the award”. Against that order an appeal was preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Lahore, which by...the High Court (Punjab) Order, 1947, applied to the East Punjab High Court. Before the Appellate Bench, the Governor-General contended that the appeal under the Letters Patent was prohibited by...

...alleges that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, that it is the proprietor/assignee of the said Patent No. 138571 relating of Titanium Substrate..., 1977, that they have not infringed the plaintiff's patent, that the plaintiff is neither the inventor nor an assignee of any invention forming subject-matter of alleged Patent No. 138571, that the...execution. It is therefore, apparent that as soon as the entry of registration of his deed was made by the Patent Office on 21st June. 1979 the plaintiff became the assignee of the patent in question with...

...the letters patent of the High Court.2. After hearing counsel for the parties at great length we passed the following Order on April 22, 1981...) was not a judgment as contemplated by clause 15 of the letters patent of the High Court. Hence, this appeal by special leave.5. The substantial questions of law raised in...this appeal by the counsel for the parties are as to the scope, ambit and meaning of the word “judgment” appearing in clause 15 of the letters patent of the Bombay High Court and corresponding clauses in...

...disclosed in the suit patent. Such admissions were made by the plaintiffs in European Patent Office (EP 1654263) as well. In the said application, plaintiffs have admitted that suit patent disclosed only...medicine as the same were chemically and physically unstable in nature. Various objections were raised by the European Patent Office to the grant of European Patent (EP 1654263) to Merck and Co. Inc for... steps, inter alia, in the light of the first patent (WO 03/004498). The said opposition was rejected and validity of EP 1654263 was upheld. Thus, Sitagliptin...

..., disposing of a batch of appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of a Single Judge is under challenge in these appeals. Since common questions of fact and law were raised.../s Goldstone Exports and other assignees for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. Thereafter the applicants so impleaded as defendants in the suit filed EP No. 3 of 1996 seeking delivery of...of a transfer made by a decree-holder to an assignee, cannot claim that the question regarding its validity should be decided during execution proceedings. Hence, it is necessary that the questions...

...parties and hence no letters patent appeal will lie. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Respondent 3 claims as an assignee of the rights of Respondents 1 and 2 and has the right to...agreement of sale in its favour. The appellant opposed the chamber summons on the ground that Respondent 3 was not a bona fide assignee or a necessary party and that the issues in the suit were framed on...OnLine Bom 4812 and costs of Rs 10,000 was directed to be paid to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the letters patent appeal which came to be dismissed holding that the...

...way of restitution were started by the first defendant and Karnavan of the Tarwad by filing EP No. 29 of 1959. All the properties which had been taken possession of by Mohammed Haji in execution of the...ex parte decree and of which restitution was sought were set out in a schedule in the proceedings for restitution. Item No. 6 in EP No. 29 of 1959 was the suit property. EP No. 29 of 1959 had...Ali AIR 1916 Cal 710 where it has been held that the assignee of a decree-holder auction-purchaser stands in no better position...

...appeal. The judgment-debtor preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by Chagla, C.J, and Shah, J., following the two earlier decisions mentioned above. They, however...assignee an assignee for the purpose of Rule 16 and that what the Court must consider is not merely a legal assignment but also an assignment which operates in equity. The equitable principle relied upon...a person executes a document purporting to assign property to be afterwards acquired by him, that property on its acquisition passes in equity to the assignee: Holroyd v. Marshall...

...invalid under Section 64 (1)(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 for lack of inventive steps and being obvious. It is urged that Example 51 of EP '226 is the closest prior art cited in the suit patent and any...person skilled in the art would be motivated to use the same as a starting point. Further EP '226 was the first patent document to disclose the use of Quinazoline derivatives for their anti-cancer...properties. The only difference between a large number of compounds exemplified in EP '226 and those exemplified in the suit patent was a mere substitution of Methyl with Ethynyl on the 3 meta position...

...Patent “Publication No. 0566 226 A1” (herein after EP'226) which was an application of Astrazeneca Limited in the EU for grant of patent in respect of ‘Gefitinib’. Among the other...art with reference to the EP'226 patent.58. On the other hand it is contended by the defendant that Section 3(d) of the Act introduced in 2005 has made...refers to EP ‘226 which was relied upon by the defendant to suggest that the molecule structure of the suit patent was similar to those disclosed in the aforementioned patent. In other words, it was...

...decree in favour of Meenakshi Achi was an act of insolvency. On December 14, 1936, the assignee, Meenakshi Achi, filed EP No. 37 of 1937 for recognition of the assignment in her favour and for execution...respondent, the Official Receiver, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. On August 2, 1940, the assignee-decree-holder filed another execution petition, EP No. 243 of 1940, and it was struck off on September 30...Section 54 of the Act annulling that transfer.3. In the meantime, Meenakshi Achi had made two applications for execution of the decree as the assignee of it and a reference...

...such a case it was intended that an order for recovery of possession can be made against the assignee alone for that would enable the object of the statute which was to enable the landlord to recover...premises except those who have independent title to them. This section does not however say that an order for recovery of possession against an assignee of a lessee cannot be made. It would not..., therefore, support an argument that it was not intended that an order for recovery of possession could be made under Section 14 against an assignee or a subtenant. On the other harid, it seems to me that to...

..., JPO and such information regarding almost 17 other countries along with the corresponding patents as granted in US and EP were provided.(C) IN IN203686 (‘686 Patent...such information regarding almost 18 other countries on 24/04/2007, wherein, it was also informed that an application for grant of patent was pending in Japan. Also, copies of granted USA and EP...July 13, 2001, December 7, 2001 and April 8, 2002. Again with respect to its EP patent EP20000931815, the Plaintiff suppressed the objection report dated 31.01.2006 Further, the Plaintiff failed to...

..., on principle and on authority it is now clearly and firmly established that for the purposes of jurisdiction under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent, in a suit by an assignee the assignment must be...The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—Das, J.:— This is an application for revocation of the leave granted to the Plaintiff under cl. 12 of the Letters Patent to...institute this suit in this Court.2. This suit was filed, with leave of this Court, on April 17th, 1944, by an assignee of a claim founded on account stated in writing. The writ of summons was...

...to do so as assignee under an oral transfer. His application was rejected on the ground that an assignee could execute a decree only when the assignment was in writing. The appellant subsequently...the provisions of Rule 16 (Order XXI), which give the right to execute to an assignee only when the assignment is in writing. The definition or the word decree-holder is...also against the contention urged by the appellants' Vakil. 3. It is then suggested that the appellant who obtained the decree at the family partition was really an assignee, by...