8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
1/18
Patent Controversy
Bajaj Auto TVS Motors
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
2/18
Introduction
Chronology
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
3/18
February 16, 2008
y Bajaj sought and was granted an interlocutory injunction by
the Madras High Court on restraining TVS Motor Co. Ltd.
(TVS) from launching their 125 cc motorcycle under the
trademark Flame
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
4/18
May 18, 2009
y TVS lodged an appeal before the Division Bench and the
order of the Single Bench was overturned
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
5/18
September 16, 2009
y Bajaj appealed before the Supreme Court, which directed
that TVS shall be entitled to sell its motorcycle Flame
y But TVS has to maintain an accurate record of all its domestic
and international salesy Directed the Madras High Court to appoint a receiver for
this purpose.
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
6/18
Facts of the case
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
7/18
DTS-i Technology
y On July 7, 2005, Bajaj was granted a patent with a priority
date of July 16, 2002
y The title of the patent application was An improved Internal
Combustion Engine working on four stroke principley Use of twin spark plugs located diametrically opposite to
each other in a small displacement engine with the cylinder
bore diameter ranging between 45 mm to 70 mm
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
8/18
Pulsar
y In 2003, Bajaj launched Pulsar, a motorcycle which
employed the DTS-iTechnology in respect of which the
patent was then pending
y
In the first eight months of that financial year itself,B
ajajmanufactured and marketed 814,393 two-wheelers with the
DTS-iTechnology
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
9/18
Flame
y In 2007, TVS announced the launch of a 125 cc motorcycle
under the trademark Flame
y Powered by lean burn internal combustion engine of bore
size 54.5 mm with a twin spark plug configuration just likeBajaj
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
10/18
TVS Suit
y TVS stated that on September 1 & 3, 2007, Bajaj had issued
certain groundless threats to dissuade TVS from launching
Flame
y
InO
ctober 2007, TVS filed a suit under section 105 & 106 ofthe Act in the Madras High Court, alleging constituted
groundless threats, and sought the intervention of the court
to restrain Bajaj from interfering with the launch of Flame
y
Further, TVS also filed an application for the revocation ofBajajs patent before the Indian Patents Appellate Board
under section 64 of the India Patents Act, 1970
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
11/18
Bajaj Suit
y Bajaj filed a suit for permanent injunction under section 108
of the Act in the Madras High Court
y Restrain TVS from using the internal combustion technology
patented byB
ajaj and from employing the same in marketing2/3 wheelers, including TVSs proposed 125-cc Flame
motorcycle
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
12/18
Analysis
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
13/18
Principles for the grant of an
interlocutory injunction
y That the plaintiff must establish that it has a prima facie case,
that its patent is valid and that its rights have been infringed
y That the balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff
yThat the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, ifthe interlocutory injunction, as sought, is not granted
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
14/18
Single Bench of the Madras High Court
y Date: February 16, 2008
y Ruling: Restrained TVS from launching the proposed 125-cc
Flame motorcycle
yReason:y Bajaj prima facie enjoyed the right of exclusive usage of the
patent, granted to it by the PatentOffice.
y The Madras High Court held that Bajaj had succeeded in
establishing a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
15/18
Single Bench of the Madras High Court
y Pulsar had been introduced in the market in 2003, TVS had for thefirst time raised an objection only on August 24, 2007, by whichtime Bajajs DTS-i technology based product had been sold inlarge numbers across the country
y
Single Judge found that the petition for revocation of a patentgranted to Bajaj had been filed a mere six days prior to the launchof Flame, and as such the conduct of TVS was not entirely bonafide
y The patent granted to Bajaj could not be viewed with suspicion,
considering that it had been in existence for more than five yearsand as such the patentee Bajaj must be treated as an actual user andthe presumption of the validity of its patent was thus established
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
16/18
Division Bench
y Nature of operation of the DTS-i engine by virtue of twin
spark plugs and that of TVS by virtue of receipt of air fuel
mixture through two different intake valves, their points of
emphasis differed considerably
y The operation of the invention as claimed by the Bajaj
appears to be plug centric and that of TVS was valve centric
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
17/18
Supreme Court
y Reiterated that in matters relating to trademarks, copyright
and patents, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
which mandate that civil disputes should be heard on a day to
day basis without any adjournments
y Final judgment should be given normally within four months
from the date of the filing of the suit
8/8/2019 D Santhosh Samuel
18/18
Thank You!!!
the company lost about Rs 120 crore in sales because of the delay in
launching the Flame
MrVenu Srinivasan,
MD, TVS