<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (6) TMI 994 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194027</link>
    <description>A person interested challenging a patent cannot pursue both a revocation petition and a counter-claim for the same patent validity issue at the same time, because Section 64 uses alternative remedies and parallel adjudication on the same cause is impermissible. The text further states that the order of institution matters: if revocation is filed first, a later counter-claim on the same cause cannot proceed; if the suit and counter-claim come first, a later revocation petition by the same person is barred. It also notes that a consent order consolidating proceedings for convenience and expedition was consistent with statutory jurisdiction and orderly procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:20:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 994 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194027</link>
      <description>A person interested challenging a patent cannot pursue both a revocation petition and a counter-claim for the same patent validity issue at the same time, because Section 64 uses alternative remedies and parallel adjudication on the same cause is impermissible. The text further states that the order of institution matters: if revocation is filed first, a later counter-claim on the same cause cannot proceed; if the suit and counter-claim come first, a later revocation petition by the same person is barred. It also notes that a consent order consolidating proceedings for convenience and expedition was consistent with statutory jurisdiction and orderly procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>