<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Saturday 14/03/2009</title><link>http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Education/SC-ruling-on-open-university-degrees/articleshow/4215591.cms</link><description>Saturday 14/03/2009&#13;
SC ruling on open university degrees</description><author>Archana</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments>Education category</comments><pubDate>13-Mar-2009</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link>http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnaipr.com%2FCaseLaws%2F396DEL1996+Meditab+Order.pdf</link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category>Case Laws</category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Applicant May Be Own Lexicographer</title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link>http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnaipr.com%2FCaseLaws%2FApplicant+May+Be+Own+Lexicographer.pdf</link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description>An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994)</description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category>Case Laws</category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate>5-Jan-2009</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source>MPEP, USPTO</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Strix Ltd v Maharaja Appliances Ltd - Importance of filing for REVOCATION</title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link>http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnaipr.com%2FCaseLaws%2FOPPOSITION.pdf</link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description>The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining Maharaja Appliances from manufacturing and marketing Maharaja Whiteline electric kettle Model No EK 172 as it infringed Strixs patent IN 192511 US 6080968. &#13;
&#13;
&#13;
&#13;
&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr.Feroz(Pharma Patents), for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP for the Report.</description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category>Article</category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate>6-Nov-2009</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source>Delhi High Court and Spicy IP</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Delhi High Court rules on Section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act</title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category>Article</category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate>20-Nov-2009</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source>Delhi High Court and SPICY IP</source></item><item><title>Delhi High Court rules on Section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act</title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link>http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnaipr.com%2FCaseLaws%2FDelhi+High+Court..pdf</link><description>Acknowledgment - Thanks to Sumathi\'s wizadry over Google and Prashant Reddy for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP </description><author>Prashant Reddy</author><category>Article</category><comments></comments><pubDate>20-Nov-2009</pubDate><source>Delhi High Court and SPICY IP</source></item><item><title>Takeda files Para IV infringement suit against Aurobindo</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/Takeda files Para IV.pdf</link><description>The Japanese drug major Takeda Pharmaceuticals and its US arm sued the Hyderabad based Aurobindo Pharma and its US subsidiary for alleged Para IV patent rights infringement</description><author>Gireesh Babu, Mumbai</author><category>News</category><comments></comments><pubDate>11-Mar-2010</pubDate><source>Chronicle Pharmabiz</source></item><item><title>Test</title><link>www.plus91.in</link><description>TEst123</description><author>Plus</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments>Na</comments><pubDate>02-Feb-2010</pubDate><source>Plus91</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd.&#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir&#13;
</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd.&#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd.&#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.&#13;
</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.&#13;
</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.&#13;
</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>A generic giant juggernaut called Teva Pharma</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Aliso Viejo, California&#13;
&#13;
</description><author>Aliso Viejo, California</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>14-Feb-2010</pubDate><source>Aliso Viejo, California</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</title><link>http://www.gnaipr.com/CaseLaws/396DEL1996.pdf</link><description>Decision of Pre-grant opposition by Way of Representation by the Delhi Patent Office was held in favour of The Opponents, Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd. &#13;
&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#13;
The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir.</description><author>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents &amp; Designs</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>23-Mar-2009</pubDate><source>Indian Patent Office</source></item><item><title>This is a Test for Nrip</title><link>www.nihalani.info</link><description>BOOOO</description><author>Bhole Shankar</author><category>CaseLaws</category><comments></comments><pubDate>22-Feb-2010</pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item><item><title></title><link></link><description></description><author></author><category></category><comments></comments><pubDate></pubDate><source></source></item></channel></rss>
