Bajaj Auto Ltd vs TVS Motor Company Ltd

Bajaj Auto Ltd vs TVS Motor Company Ltd - Transcript

Bajaj Auto Ltd vs TVS Motor Company Ltd Group members 1 Abhishek Chaudhari 09FT 004 2 Abhishek Dhal 09FT005 3 Akshay Agarwal 09FT

Intellectual Property
Intellectual property IP is a number of

distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind both artistic and commercial and the corresponding fields of law
Under intellectual property law owners are

granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets such as musical literary and artistic works ideas discoveries and inventions and words phrases symbols and designs

Types of intellectual properties
Primary Rights Patents Copyright Trademarks Industrial designs Utility models Geographical indicators Trade secrets

Types of intellectual properties
Sui generis rights means unique in its

characteristics and granted to owners of a small class of works
Database rights Plant breeder s rights Mask work Supplementary protection certificates Indigenous intellectual property

Patent
A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted

by a state national government to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention

Inventions Patentable
Art Process Method or Manner of

manufacture
Machine Apparatus or other Articles Substances produced by Manufacturing Computer Software which has Technical

application to Industry or is used with hardware
Product Patent for Food Chemical

Medicines or Drugs
Should be


Requirements for filing a patent in India
Full name address nationality of

applicant s and inventor s
Specification provisional complete drawings

claims and abstract
List of countries to claim priority if any where

the application applications for the grant of patent has have been filed along with date and application number

Procedure for grant of a patent
After filing Patent Application in India a

Request for Examination is filed with the Patent Office
Thereafter the application is examined by

patent office and objections if any are raised thereto
After removal of all the objections the Patent

is granted and is advertised for Opposition Purposes

Patents
Infringement Patent infringement is the commission of a

prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder
Term of patent 20 years

Renewal

Every year from the date of

patent

Case History

Bajaj Patent No 195904
An improved Internal Combustion Engine working on four stroke principle having two valves per cylinder for efficient burning of lean air fuel mixture used in engines where the diameter of cylinder bore ranges between 45 mm and 70 mm characterized in that said Internal Combustion Engine comprises a pair of spark plugs
Bajaj filed a patent application for DTS i

technology on July 16 2002 in the Indian Patent Office

Revocation petition by TVS
Six days before the launch of its bike

Flame and nine days before the launch of Exceed by Bajaj TVS filed a revocation petition against Bajaj s patent claiming that the technology used by Bajaj had already been patented by Honda and that the technology was commonly used The patent by Honda was to expire in 2005 and Bajaj had filed its application in 2002

Technology
Bajaj Four stroke engine having two

valves per cylinder for efficient burning of lean air fuel mixture comprising of two spark plugs
TVS Four stroke engine having three

valves per cylinder comprising of two spark plugs
Honda The patent was on a combination

of two spark plugs with three valves in a

Bajaj s Reply
Bajaj filed a suit for injunction against TVS

alleging that TVS had infringed on Bajaj s patent for twin spark technology and that the revocation petition was invalid
Bajaj argued that s 48 after the 2002

Amendment Act laid increased emphasis on the rights of the patentee for it allowed him to prevent third parties from using the patent According to Bajaj this enhanced protection translated into a presumption in favour of the patent which had been granted

Bajaj s Reply contd
Bajaj claimed that the TVS engine was

essentially similar to its engine in usage size and design and that the third valve in TVS s engine was ornamental and had no functional value
Bajaj also pointed out that the conduct of TVS

subsequent to the grant of patent to Bajaj and prior to the launch of Flame was suspicious This is because TVS was silent for over 4 years after the patent grant to Bajaj but filed a revocation petition under s 64 of the Patents

TVS s counter attack on Bajaj s reply

To this TVS countered that the revocation

bid negated any presumptive validity of the Bajaj patent TVS relied on s 13 4 of the Patents Act which states that examination and investigation or any proceeding consequent to it carried out pursuant to s 12 of the Act did not in itself warrant any kind of validity to the patent Any proceeding consequent includes grant as well

Injunction granted against TVS
Madras High Court granted injunction to

Bajaj on the following grounds
Usage purpose and design of TVS s engine

was essentially similar to that of Bajaj
Inactivity on part of TVS for five years after

grant of patent to Bajaj
The fact that Bajaj had exported its product to

many countries and had sold 3 07 million units by that time highlighted the delay on TVS s part
The court relied on the above mentioned

details as it was not well versed with

Injunction granted against TVS contd

The Court also held that mere filing of a

revocation petition under s 64 did not give rise to a presumption against the validity of the patent and that a final decision of the validity of the patent involved a plethora of complex issues which the Court was not required to consider for only a prima facie view was required
On infringement the Court again reiterated that

the third valve was not of much use though the issue had to be decided at the trial stage It was of the opinion that even if the third valve was

Revocation of injunction
A division bench of Madras High Court

comprising Justice S J Mukhopadyay and Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla revoked the injunction
TVS was allowed to manufacture Flame

as the bench felt that there was a difference between the technologies of the two competitors
Combustion process in TVS s engine was not

exclusively based on twin spark technology but on the three valve technology patented by

Revocation of injunction contd
The court opined that simply because Bajaj

had a patent on the twin spark technology did not mean that it had a prima facie case of infringement against TVS especially when the validity of its own patent was in question
In revoking the injunction order the court

disregarded the existence of irreparable loss and the question of balance of convenience

Bajaj approaches Supreme Court
After revocation of injunction Bajaj

approached the Supreme Court in appeal to the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which allowed the launch of TVS Flame in the market

Current Status
the appeal has been admitted and parties

instructed to complete relevant documentation it is for the Apex Court now to determine the fate of the interim injunction in appeal The Supreme Court on 31st August posted to September 15 for final disposal
It has permitted TVS to manufacture

Flame but not to move its finished product from its warehouse

Our recommendation
In our opinion the case should be decided

in favor of Bajaj primarily on the ground that TVS filed the revocation application just 6 days before the launch of Flame
TVS was itself of the belief that the

technology used in Flame was infringing on Bajaj s patent
By that time five years of

commercialization had already elapsed

THANKS