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