<link/><description/><author/><category/><comments/><pubDate/><source/></item><item><title>Saturday 14/03/2009</h1> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Saturday 14/03/2009</h1> <p>Archana — 13-Mar-2009</p> Saturday 14/03/2009 SC ruling on open university degrees </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> </article> <article> </article> <article> 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. <br/><br/> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <p>23-Mar-2009</p> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Applicant May Be Own Lexicographer</h1> </article> <article> </article> <article> 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) </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <p>5-Jan-2009</p> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Strix Ltd v Maharaja Appliances Ltd - Importance of filing for REVOCATION</h1> </article> <article> </article> <article> 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. <br/><br/>Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr.Feroz(Pharma Patents), for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP for the Report. </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <p>6-Nov-2009</p> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Delhi High Court rules on Section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act</h1> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <p>20-Nov-2009</p> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Delhi High Court rules on Section 8 and 47 of the Patents Act</h1> </article> <article> <p>Prashant Reddy — 20-Nov-2009</p> Acknowledgment - Thanks to Sumathi\'s wizadry over Google and Prashant Reddy for drawing attention to this case and Spicy IP </article> <article> <h1>Takeda files Para IV infringement suit against Aurobindo</h1> <p>Gireesh Babu, Mumbai — 11-Mar-2010</p> 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 </article> <article> <h1>Writ Petition filed in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board</h1> <p>Manoj G. Menda — 7-Feb-2011</p> The present writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Declaration declaring Chapter XI of the TradeMarks Act,1999,and Chapter XIX of the Patents Act,1970, </article> <article> <h1>The Demanding Mistress-Lesson for Applicants: No Room for Internal Docketing Errors</h1> <p>J.Sai Deepak — 3-Sep-2011</p> Delhi Patent Office delivered in a hearing dated July 26, 2011 in connection with the application 5043/DELNP/2011. <br><br> Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. J.Sai Deepak for drawing attention to this case and The Demanding Mistress.blogspot </article> <article> <h1>Delhi Patent Office Rejects Boehringers Application No. 924/DELNP/2006 Citing Section 3(d)</h1> <p>J.Sai Deepak — 11-Sep-2011</p> Boehringer Ingelheims Application No. 924/DELNP/2006 was rejected by the Delhi Patent Office earlier this year under section 3(d) of the Patents Act. <br><br> Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. J.Sai Deepak for drawing attention to this case and The Demanding Mistress.blogspot </article> <article> <h1>Paragraph IV Notice Letter</h1> <p>SHWARTZ, United States Magistrate Judge — 15-Dec-2011</p> This matter comes before the Court by way of the parties’ joint letter, dated April 6, 2011, seeking a ruling as to whether Defendant Tolmar’s Paragraph IV Notice Letter [“Paragraph IV Notice Letter”] is a confidential document that should be protected from unrestricted disclosure under the Discovery Confidentiality Order. <br><br> Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. David A. Loewenstein of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP for drawing attention to this case </article> <article> <h1>Test</h1> <p>Plus — 02-Feb-2010</p> TEst123 </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>A generic giant juggernaut called Teva Pharma</h1> <p>Aliso Viejo, California — 14-Feb-2010</p> Aliso Viejo, California </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Meditab Specialities Pvt Ltd v Gilead Science Inc</h1> <p>Dr. K.S. Kardam, Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs — 23-Mar-2009</p> 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. <br><br> The impugned Indian Patent Application No.396/Del/1996 titled Carbocyclic Compounds filed by Gilead Sciences Ltd claimed Oseltamivir. </article> <article> <h1>This is a Test for Nrip</h1> <p>Bhole Shankar — 22-Feb-2010</p> BOOOO </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> </article> <article> <h1>Paragraph IV Notice Letter</h1> <p>Judge SHWARTZ — 15-Dec-2011</p> This matter comes before the Court by way of the parties joint letter dated April 6 2011 seeking a ruling as to whether Defendant Tolmars Paragraph IV Notice Letter “Paragraph IV Notice Letter” is a confidential document that should be protected from unrestricted disclosure under the Discovery Confidentiality Order. <br><br> Acknowledgment - Thanks to Mr. David Loewenstein of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP for drawing attention to this case. </article> </main></body></html>