Patents Act, 1970

Supreme Court Directs National Policy for Hospital Admissions and Oxygen Buffer Stock: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 (30 April 2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 11, Disaster Management Act, 2005 with Section 35, Drugs Price Control Order, 2013, Drugs Price Control Order, 2013 with Paragraph 19, Drugs Price Control Order, 2013 with Paragraph 20, Judges, L Nageswara Rao, National Disaster Management Authority, Patents Act, 1970, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 100, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 92, S Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Directs National Policy for Hospital Admissions and Oxygen Buffer Stock: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 (30 April 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: The need for a uniform national policy for hospital admissions, oxygen allocation, and vaccine distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Suo Motu). Case Name: IN RE: […]

Supreme Court Directs National Policy for Hospital Admissions and Oxygen Buffer Stock: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 (30 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Status Quo in Monsanto Patent Dispute: Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019)

/ Judges, Navin Sinha, Patents Act, 1970, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 3(j), Patents Act, 1970 with Section 48, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 64, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Restores Status Quo in Monsanto Patent Dispute: Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Patentability of a man-made DNA construct and its implications on plant varieties. CASE TYPE: Patent Law, Intellectual Property Rights Case Name: Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. [Judgment Date]: January 08, 2019 Date of the

Supreme Court Restores Status Quo in Monsanto Patent Dispute: Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Judges, Patents Act, 1970, S.H. Kapadia, Section 116, Patents Act, 1970, Technical Member, IPAB

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 The Supreme Court of India stepped in to address a unique problem: what happens when the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which is supposed to handle complex patent disputes, doesn’t have a Technical Member? This issue arose in a case involving Natco Pharma Limited and the Union

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the effect of repeal on Exclusive Marketing Rights under the Patents Act: Glaxo Smith Kline PLC vs. Controller of Patents & Designs (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, Patents Act, 1970, Patents Act, 1970 with Section 24B(1), Patents Act, 1970 with Section 5(2)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008 Citation: N/A (Case reference: Civil Appeal No. 5588 of 2008, arising out of SLP (C) No.21010 of 2006) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. When a law is repealed, what happens to the rights that were in the process of being decided under

Supreme Court settles the effect of repeal on Exclusive Marketing Rights under the Patents Act: Glaxo Smith Kline PLC vs. Controller of Patents & Designs (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top