BajajAutoLtdvs.

TVSMotor
CompanyLtd

CaseHistory
July16,2002
Bajajfilespatentapplication
October30,2003
Bajajfilesinternationalpatentapplicationsinforeigncountries
July7,2005
BajajgrantedapatentonDTSi technology
August24,2007
RevocationpetitionfiledbyTVSseekingcancellationofpatentgrantedtoBajaj

February2008
InjunctiononTVSformanufactureofFlame
March10,2008
TVSlauncheswithsinglesparktechnology
May20,2009
RevocationofinjunctionbyMadrasHighCourt

BajajPatentNo.195904
AnimprovedInternalCombustionEngineworkingonfour
strokeprinciple, havingtwovalvespercylinder forefficient
burningofleanairfuelmixtureusedinengineswhere
the diameterofcylinderborerangesbetween45mmand70
mm characterizedinthatsaidInternalCombustionEngine
comprisesapairofsparkplugs
BajajfiledapatentapplicationforDTSi technologyonJuly
16,2002intheIndianPatentOffice
ItalsofiledaPCTapplicationforexclusiverightsinother
countriesonOctober30,2003
ThepatentwasgrantedonJuly7,2005

RevocationpetitionbyTVS
SixdaysbeforethelaunchofitsbikeFlame
andninedaysbeforethelaunchofExceed
byBajaj,TVSfiledarevocationpetition
againstBajajspatentclaimingthatthe
technologyusedbyBajajhadalreadybeen
patentedbyHondaandthatthetechnology
wascommonlyused.ThepatentbyHonda
wastoexpirein2005andBajajhadfiledits
applicationin2002

Technology
Bajaj Fourstrokeengine,havingtwovalves
percylinderforefficientburningofleanair
fuelmixture,comprisingoftwosparkplugs
TVS Fourstrokeengine,havingthreevalves
percylinder,comprisingoftwosparkplugs
Honda Thepatentwasonacombinationof
twosparkplugswiththreevalvesinasingle
cylinderwhichisexactlywhattheTVSmodel
wasbasedon

BajajsReply
BajajfiledasuitforinjunctionagainstTVSalleging
thatTVShadinfringedonBajajspatentfortwinspark
technologyandthattherevocationpetitionwas
invalid
Bajajarguedthats.48,afterthe2002Amendment
Act,laidincreasedemphasisontherightsofthe
patenteeforitallowedhimtopreventthirdparties
fromusingthepatent.AccordingtoBajaj,this
enhancedprotectiontranslatedintoapresumptionin
favourofthepatentwhichhadbeengranteduntilitis
revokedinamannerprescribedbylaw.

BajajsReply(contd.):
BajajclaimedthattheTVSenginewasessentially
similartoitsengineinusage,sizeanddesignandthat
thethirdvalveinTVSsenginewasornamentalandhad
nofunctionalvalue
BajajalsopointedoutthattheconductofTVS
subsequenttothegrantofpatenttoBajajandpriorto
thelaunchofFlamewassuspicious.Thisisbecause
TVSwassilentforover4yearsafterthepatentgrantto
Bajajbutfiledarevocationpetitionunders.64ofthe
PatentsActbeforetheIPABon24082007,justsix
daysbeforethelaunchofitsimpugnedmodelFlame.

TVSscounterattackonBajajs
reply
Tothis,TVScounteredthattherevocationbid
negatedanypresumptivevalidityoftheBajaj
patent.TVSreliedons.13(4)ofthePatents
Actwhichstatesthatexaminationand
investigationoranyproceedingconsequentto
itcarriedoutpursuanttos.12oftheActdid
notinitselfwarrantanykindofvaliditytothe
patent.Anyproceedingconsequentincludes
grantaswell.

InjunctiongrantedagainstTVS
MadrasHighCourtgrantedinjunctiontoBajajon
thefollowinggrounds
Usage,purposeanddesignofTVSsenginewas
essentiallysimilartothatofBajaj
InactivityonpartofTVSforfiveyearsaftergrantof
patenttoBajaj
ThefactthatBajajhadexporteditsproducttomany
countriesandhadsold3.07millionunitsbythattime
highlightedthedelayonTVSspart
Thecourtreliedontheabovementioneddetailsasit
wasnotwellversedwithtechnologicalaspectsofthe
case

InjunctiongrantedagainstTVS
(contd.):

TheCourtalsoheldthatmerefilingofarevocationpetition
unders.64didnotgiverisetoapresumptionagainstthe
validityofthepatentandthatafinaldecisionofthevalidityof
thepatentinvolvedaplethoraofcomplexissueswhichthe
Courtwasnotrequiredtoconsiderforonlyaprimafacieview
wasrequired.
Oninfringement,theCourtagainreiteratedthatthethird
valvewasnotofmuchusethoughtheissuehadtobedecided
atthetrialstage.Itwasoftheopinionthatevenifthethird
valvewasconsideredamaterialadditiontotheTVSmodel,
sincetheessentialfeaturesoftheBajajpatenthadbeenused
inFlame;itamountedtoinfringementbecausetheconsentof
thepatenteewasabsent.
TVSlaunchedFlamewithsinglesparktechnologyafterthe
injunctionorder

Revocationofinjunction
AdivisionbenchofMadrasHighCourt
comprisingJusticeSJMukhopadyay andJusticeF
MIbrahimKalifulla revokedtheinjunction
TVSwasallowedtomanufactureFlameasthe
benchfeltthattherewasadifferencebetween
thetechnologiesofthetwocompetitors
CombustionprocessinTVSsenginewasnot
exclusivelybasedontwinsparktechnologybutonthe
threevalvetechnologypatentedbyAVLGmBH,
AustriawhichhadbeenlicensedtoTVS

Revocationofinjunction(contd.)
ThecourtopinedthatsimplybecauseBajaj
hadapatentonthetwinsparktechnology,did
notmeanthatithadaprimafaciecaseof
infringementagainstTVSespeciallywhenthe
validityofitsownpatentwasinquestion
Inrevokingtheinjunctionorderthecourt
disregardedtheexistenceofirreparableloss
andthequestionofbalanceofconvenience

BajajapproachesSupremeCourt
Afterrevocationofinjunction,Bajaj
approachedtheSupremeCourtinappealto
theorderoftheDivisionBenchoftheMadras
HighCourtwhichallowedthelaunchofTVS
Flameinthemarket