advocatemmmohan
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD This petition is for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order refusing the grant of product patent was passed on 22.03.20008. Aggrieved by that order, review was filed on 22.05.2008. This was dismissed on 20.06.2008 and another order was passed on 01.07.2008 by which both the process and product patents were refused and aggrieved by this the petitioner filed Writ Petition in November, 2008, after four months. =“27. In view of the decision of this Court as detailed hereinbefore, this Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain this petition, not because it does not have the power to do so, but because in the considered view of this Court, the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act before the IPAB. The order refusing the grant of patent is in fact an order under Section 15 of the Patents Act which in terms of Section 117 A is an appealable order. If the appeal before the IPAB is filled by the Eli Lilly & Co within a period of two weeks from today, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the IPAB will consider and decide such an application, after hearing RLL. The IPAB will take into account the period during which Eli Lilly & Co.’s review application against the order dated 22nd March 2007 and thereafter the present writ petition were pending. All contentions of both Eli Lilly & Co. and RLL are left open to be urged before the IPAB which will be dealt with such contentions in accordance law. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.” 4. Therefore, since the appeal has been filed within time stipulated the delay is condoned. The maintainability of the appeal against the refusal of grant of product patent can always be objected when the matter is taken up for hearing. The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if otherwise found in order. M.P.No.52/2011 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018 (Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi) M.P.No.52/2011 AND COD NO.20/2010 IN SR.NO.77/2010/PT/IPAB FRIDAY, THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN … CHAIRMAN HON’BLE SHRI D.P.S.PARMAR … TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) Eli Lilly & Co., A … Continue reading
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD- One Overture Services Inc. (original patent applicant) applied on 14.05.2004 for patent of its invention titled in respect of “System and method for influencing a position on a search result listing generated by a computer network search engine” which was later amended to “A method of operating a computer network search apparatus”. The application claimed priority from an US application 09/322677 dated 28.05.1999. The First Examination Report dated 30th December, 2004 raised 17 objections. The crucial objections were: the claim falls within section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act in short); claims 62 and 63 not sufficiently distinctive and that the question of novelty will be considered after the objections have been complied with. The applicant gave its response on 11.07.05 substituting the claims with a new set of claims 1-45 which included technical subject matter and, therefore, not excluded by S. 3 (k) of the Act. On 12.08.2005, the Patent Office sent its report and it stated that objection (i) had not been met and that it was not patentable under section 3(k); there is no novelty etc. To this again the appellant gave its response and deleted claim 1-25 relating to apparatus and also requested that the delay in the belated submission may be condoned. On 09.06.2006, the appellant was informed that the application had been found in order for grant, but it will be granted only after the disposal of pre-grant opposition (if any). On 20.04.2007 application was published. M/s Rediff.com India Ltd., filed a pre-grant opposition under S.25(1) on 22.10.2007. On 03.03.2009, the appellant had taken over the original applicant by merger and this was informed to the Patent Office. On 30.03.2009, the appellant was informed that the invention did not pass the novelty and patentability test. -50. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to several patents granted for business methods to Google and cited the Dimminaco AG v. Controller of Patents (IPLR 2002 July 255). We are not going into the question whether Google ought to have been granted patent or not. We have found that this invention cannot be granted patent. However, it cannot be disputed that there should be a uniform practice, when similar inventions come up for grant of patent. There cannot be conflicting positions. If indeed the Patent Office had been adopting different standards, it is not desirable. If the patents granted to Google suffer from the same vice of S.3 (k) then as and when the question arises, it will be dealt with. But we cannot allow this appeal, ignoring the patentability bar merely because it is alleged that in other cases erroneous decisions have been issued. We cannot examine the correctness of those grants in the absence of that patentee.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-l, 2nd floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 OA/22/2010/PT/CH THURSDAY, THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN … CHAIRMAN HON’BLE Shri D.P.S.PARMAR … TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) Yahoo Inc. (Formerly Overture Service Inc.) A Dealware Corporation having its place of … Continue reading
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2010 to section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 01.04.2010, is remedial and curative in nature and is, therefore, retrospective in nature.” -In view of the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from assessment year 2010- 2011 cannot be held to be retrospective from assessment year 2005-2006. Two diametrically opposite views on this issue, expressed, inter alia, by the Mumbai Benches of the tribunal, were placed before us. With utmost respect to the other, we are inclined to accept the one in favour of the Revenue. We, therefore, hold that the authorities below were fully justified in sustaining disallowance of Rs.50.12 lakhs u/s 40(a)(ia) in the year under consideration. The question posted before the Special Bench is, therefore, answered in negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the amendment brought out by the Finance Act, 2010 to section 40(a)(ia) w.e.f. 01.04.2010, is not remedial and curative in nature. 57. Ground no.3 dealing with this issue is, therefore, rejected. 58. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri R.S.Syal, A.M., Shri D.K.Agarwal, JM and Shri Rajendra Singh, A.M. ITA No.2404/Mum/2009 :Asst.Year 2005-2006 M/s.Bharati Shipyard Limited 302 Wakefield House, 3 rd Floor Sport Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 038. PAN :AAACB1688E. Vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 3(1) Mumbai. (Appellant) … Continue reading
petitioner herein, is a poor cultivator and had dug up a deep well on his plot. On his application to Respondent No.4 (who was OP No.1 before the District Forum) for a deep well under KSK Scheme, Respondent No.4 allowed the same and sanctioned a deep well on complainant’s property. Accordingly, the petitioner dug up a deep well and also applied to Respondent No.1 (OP No.2) for supply of electricity to the 5 HP Mono block motor for the purpose of irrigation. On recommendation of Respondent No.3 (OP No.4), the permission for installation of the electric motor and supply of electricity was granted and accordingly an agreement between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 was entered into on 29.4.1999 for which the petitioner was also required to deposit necessary charges amounting to Rs.1070 on 22.4.1999. Respondent No.3, however, did not release necessary material for installation of the L.I. point because of which necessary electric supply could not be provided to the petitioner thereby leading to alleged loss of crops and incurring of expenditure bythe petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balasore claiming an amount of Rs.20,000/- spent by him in the installation of the electric motor and compensation of Rs.20,000/- besides cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-=since nothing has been produced by respondent Co. to disprove or convincingly justify the undue delay on their part in taking action in pursuance of the agreement entered into by it with the petitioner which was well before the issuance of the letter on 17.12.1999 by the REC/Government to deny funds for the scheme. To this extent, there was deficiency on the part of the Respondents No.1 to 3. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and partly allow the revision petition and confirm the order of the District Forum to the extent of payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation in the matter to the petitioner. This amount of compensation shall be paid by Respondents No. 1 to 3 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of actual release of the amount.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1791 OF 2007 (From the order dated 30.4.2007 in Appeal No. 589/2002 of Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack) Sri Surendra Nath Patra ….. Petitioner S/o late Radhanath Patra Village/P.O. Balim P.S. Bhograi, Dist. Balasore Orissa Vs. 1. Executive Engineer Electrical ….. Respondents GRIDCO (CED) NESCO, Jaleswar Elect. Division At /Po. Jaleswar, Dist. Balasore State – Orissa 2. Sub. Divisional Officer, Elect. RIDCO Bhograi NESCO Bhograi At/po. Bhograi, Dist. Balasore … Continue reading
CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL=The Adjudicating Officer shall take the matter and permit the complainant to implead (i) CDSL (Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. (ii) BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) and (iii) NSE (National Stock Exchange) as parties. The Adjudicating Officer shall direct the complainant to amend the complaint in accordance with the directions made above and thereafter dispose of the complaint in accordance with law expeditiously. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Officer, Gujarat State for deciding afresh in view of observations made above.
CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (Ministry of Communications & Information Technology) Jeevan Bharti (LIC) Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi APPEAL NO. 1/2009 Date of decision May 26,2010 SH. Harish Kumar C.Vakaria …..APPELLANT Through Mr.Manan S.Thakker, Advocate and Mr.Hardik Gupta,Advo Vs M/s India Infoline Ltd.. …..RESPONDENT Through Mr.Y.H.Motiramani,Advo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH TANDON, CHAIRPERSON 1. Whether the … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 