<?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>1979 (10) TMI 230 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197946</link>
    <description>An assignee under a patent assignment deed may maintain a suit once the assignment is executed, because registration under the Patents Act, 1970 operates retrospectively from the date of execution and does not defeat locus standi. In patent infringement matters, interim relief is assessed on prima facie validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. On the stated facts, the patent had been worked, the correspondence suggested the defendants had sought a licence and acknowledged the invention, and the materials supported a prima facie case of validity and infringement. The analysis therefore supports temporary injunctive protection where continued infringement would cause harm not adequately compensated by damages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:17:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (10) TMI 230 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197946</link>
      <description>An assignee under a patent assignment deed may maintain a suit once the assignment is executed, because registration under the Patents Act, 1970 operates retrospectively from the date of execution and does not defeat locus standi. In patent infringement matters, interim relief is assessed on prima facie validity, infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. On the stated facts, the patent had been worked, the correspondence suggested the defendants had sought a licence and acknowledged the invention, and the materials supported a prima facie case of validity and infringement. The analysis therefore supports temporary injunctive protection where continued infringement would cause harm not adequately compensated by damages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>