BAJAJ AUTO LTD. Vs. T.V.S. MOTOR COMPANY LTD. - A Case Study. by Anoop Kumar, 1st Year LLM, NALSAR University of Law

INTRODUCTION.

The case involves the issues of patent infringement by the defendant and the damages for the same. But the case, further, touches upon the controversy regarding justification of the threats issued by the defendant of the same case. The case was filed before the Madras High Court in 2007.

The plaintiffs in (Bajaj Auto Ltd), along with the state of Maharashtra alleged the defendants (T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd.) of infringement of the patents of the plaintiffs, which concerns the invention of the technology of improved internal combustion engine. The remedy sought by the plaintiffs is that of permanent injunction¹ for prohibiting the defendants from:

1. using the technology or invention described in the patents of the plaintiffs; and
2. preventing them from marketing, selling offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers (including the proposed 125cc TVS FLAME motorcycle) that contain the disputed internal combustion engine or product that infringe the patent. They also claim damages for infringement of the patent.

The suit was pending. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs brought application before the same court seeking temporary injunction against the defendant for the same relief, which was sought in the suit for the permanent injunction. The application was filed for preventing the infringement of the patent till the pendency of the suit.

The defendants in the case filed a suit in the court² for preventing the plaintiffs from issuing threats that the plaintiffs are infringing the defendants’ patent, through various mediums to and thereby interfering with the launch of their product (TVS FLAME) by the plaintiffs.

The suit was pending before the court. Meanwhile, the defendants filed an application for preventing the defendants, till the suit is pending, from issuing threats and thereby interfering with the launch of their product.

The case study deals with the substantive aspect of the suit in light of the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. Moreover, the study also includes various tests evolved by the Supreme Court in the case.

The importance of the case is that, in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the focus has been laid down on the quick disposal of the temporary injunction and direction to the Madras High Court for quickly disposing off the matter.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case go through the various stages:

1. Bajaj’s patent. Bajaj Auto Limited (the appellant) claimed that it was granted patent titled “An Improved Internal combustion engine working on four stroke principle” with a priority date of 16th July 2002³. The patent was granted on 7^th July, 2005.

Features of the invention are:

• Small displacement engine as reflected by a cylinder bore diameter between 45 mm and 70 mm.
• Combustion of lean air fuel mixtures;
• Using a pair of spark plugs to ignite the air fuel mixture at a predetermined instant.

2. What was the Patent all about? The subject-matter of the patent, the invention by the applicants called DTS-i Technology was relating to the use of twin spark plugs for efficient combustion of lean air fuel mixture in small bore ranging from 45 mm to 70 mm internal combustion engine working on 4 stroke principle.

3. Tests of Patentability. According to the applicants, their invention was patentable because it qualified the tests of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial application. Following were the grounds on which the applicants corroborated their claim:

• The use of two spark plugs in large bore engines or in high performance or racing bikes was known in the Automobile industry. But the invention of the appellant was not known in the industry.
• The applicants claim that the need to have more than one spark plug was never thought necessary in small bore non-racing engines. Even if it was felt so, no advantages of a dual spark plug were observed. The invention of the applicant was on the application of twin plugs in small bore engine with positive merits of improved fuel efficiency and emission characteristics. In case of the small-bore engines using twin spark plugs, those engines were not lean burn.
• In the first eight months of the that financial year, “DTS-i Technology” accounted to 54.25% share of Bajaj two wheelers. Applicants claimed that they spent considerable amount in marketing and advertising and received appreciation through out the world as recipients of various world awards and the product is of economic advantage of the country. 

4. TVS launches FLAME- the Bone of Contention. The Respondents, (M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited) announced to launch motor bikes of 125-CC on 14^th December 2007 under the trade mark 'FLAME'. The motorcycle was powered with a lean burn internal combustion engine having a twin spark plug configuration, which according to the Bajaj Auto Ltd., infringes its patent.

Therefore, before the launch of motor bikes, the applicants brought the suit before the court to protect their patent.

5. TVS files suit under section 105 and 106 of the Patents Act, 1970. In October, 2007, the respondent filed the suit before the Madras High Court⁴, alleging that the statement made by the applicant constituted a groundless threat.

They learnt that the respondent has also filed a suit for defamation against the applicant in the Bombay High Court.

6. Application for revocation of the applicant’s patent. The applicant also came to know that only 7 days before the launch of the proposed 125-CC motorcycle, the respondent filed an application for revocation of applicant's patent before Indian Patents Appellate Board (“IPAB”)⁵.

7. Launch of the disputed bike. The respondents, later in the month of December of 2007, launched the bikes without making any change into that.

 Read more at http://www.goforthelaw.com/index.php/browsearticles/loadarticleview/183.html