Find a Lawyer

MERC & CO. ING. versus HILTON PHARMA (PVT.) LTD.

Process patents registered under Section 29 Patent Ordinance of the Patent and Designs Act 1911 (LXI of 2000), Section 60 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, RR 1 and 2 Conan Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 122. The burden of the injunction temporarily on the violation, the defendant's grant did not disclose the manufacturing process of the product, even though the plaintiff raised specific points from the plaintiff's import of such raw material only from a foreign company. Which did not issue any certificate / document in favor of the defendant. Defendant's claim that the procedure used by them in the preparation of the disputed drug is not different from the one registered in favor of the plaintiff under section 29 (2) of the Patent and Designs Act 1911 and section 60 (2) of the Patent Ordinance. Was. , 2000, without filing a separate action, the defense can take any field on which the patent can be revoked, but unless such dispute is decided by the competent forum, it is likely in favor of the plaintiff Shall have the right to the exclusive and exclusive right of use, therefore, it is right to seek help from the court in order to prevent its patent infringement by anyone else, the defendant knowingly knows the necessary information and material about its process Had stopped. The preparation of the disputed drugs, although this fact may be known to them, was the burden of the defendant on the evidence of such facts, in which he failed to exclude the plaintiff to show the truth of his claim, Offered to send the plaintiff's product to a specialist. For his opinion on whether his preparation process was different from that of the plaintiff's patent, the defendant asked the court to make any such inquiry. advocate for immigration from Tharparkar lawyer