Land mark case law of Bajaj vs tvs, a bench mark setter in the field of Intellectual Property Law in india

1. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
1
Case Analysis:
Intellectual Property Law
Assignment
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd
Citation: JT 2009 (12) SC 103
SUBMITTED TO: –
Adv. BHAGYASHREE BORA MAAM
Submitted by: - Rahul Gaur
ROLL NO: – B-09
DIV: - B
CLASS: - BBA LLB 5TH YEAR

2. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
2
Case Analysis:
Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd
Citation: JT 2009 (12) SC 103
Bench: Markandey Katju and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.
Bajaj Auto Ltd ……Petitioner
Vs.
T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd …....Respondent
Introduction:
 Patent is the exclusive right of the invention given to the holder rendering him to
enjoy the monopoly along with the profits in relation to the usage of that
invention. The patent act 1970 has provisions relating to the enforcement of patent
rights and protects the interest of the holder.
 Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs T.V.S. Motor Company Ltd is a landmark case of a dispute
with regard to unauthorized application of the patent of the Digital Twin Spark
Ignition (DTSi). It is an intellectual property of Bajaj auto limited,
in DTSi technology, the two spark plugs at either end of the combustion chamber
helps faster and better combustion.
Facts:
 A suit was instituted before the single bench of Madras High Court by the Bajaj
Auto Ltd. against the infringement of its patent no. 195904, which related to twin
spark plug engine technology in the motor vehicles under the Indian Patents Act,
1973 against TVS Motors Pvt. Ltd. The appellant asserted for the grant of
permanent injunction for infringement of monopoly rights provided by the Indian
Patents Act, 1973 against the respondent.

3. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
3
 The appellants made an application for interim injunction against the respondents
restraining them from further infringing the patents of the appellant during the
pendency of the suit.
 An interim injunction was passed by the learned judge of single bench restraining
the respondents from any further infringement of the appellant’s patent and
thereby, the launch of TVS Flame was stalled.
 TVS Motor Company filed the suit on the basis of groundless threat of
infringement under Section 106 of the Patents Act, for declaring that the threats
held out by the defendant that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant’s patent and
that the defendant is proposing to take infringement action against the plaintiff are
unjustified and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from continuing
the issuance of threats and thereby interfering with the launch and sale of product
TVS Flame apart from directing the defendant to compensate the plaintiff by way
of damages sustained on account of the unjustified threats made by the plaintiff.
 An SLP (Special Leave Petition) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Court of Justice
Markandey Katju and Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly.
 Further, it was contended that no infringement of the patent was done by the
defendant and that they were facing several consequences and threats due to delay
in launching of the motorbike TVS Flame.
 In the meantime, a suit of defamation was also filed by the respondents against the
appellant in the Bombay High Court.
 TVS Motors also filed an application to strike down the patent granted to Bajaj
Auto seven days prior to the launch of TVS Flame.
 TVS Flame was launched in December 2007 even after the ongoing proceedings,
without any changes in the disputed design.

4. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
4
Issues:
 Whether the patent of the applicant was valid and still subsisting?
 Whether there were similarities in the design of TVS Flame with the patent of Bajaj
Motors?
 Whether the grant of the njunction was necessary to rotect the rights of the applicant
under the statutory provisions?
 Whtether the repondents were unjust thretened oly forhe purpose of obtainig an unjust
monopoly over the market?
Arguments:
Appellant:
 Technology been used was a prior art as it had been previously used in a US Honda
Patent and so the patent must not have been granted in the first place.
 The applicants claim is for two spark plugs with two valves; the respondents design
includes two spark plugs with three valves for which they held a license.
 The applicant's invention is not new and novel as held under norms of Bishwanth Prasad
Radhey Shyam v. H.M. Industries.
 That the validity of a patent can be challenged.
Respondent:
 The technology patented is a new invention.
 That the technology falls under strata of inventive step.
 The prior art as contended by the appellant not applicable and thus injunction be
sustained.
 On the balance of convenience, the learned senior counsel contended that the
Respondent's product came into the market three years prior to the Appellant's product
and that it had already achieved commercial success.
Judgment:
 Defendants have infringed the patent if they have used that combination. If they
have used that combination, and also something added to it, that combination
remaining a necessary part of their machine, but the addition to it being an
improvement, without acknowledgement that they are only using an improvement,
then that would be an infringement.
 If defendants had invented such a machine, they would have been entitled to take
out a patent, not for that machine as a new machine, but for an improvement upon

5. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
5
the Plaintiffs’ machine. If they had claimed the improvement on the Plaintiffs’
machine, they could not use their improved machine without paying the proper
price to the Plaintiffs for having used their machine although improved. If they
used it without paying, they would infringe. Therefore, the defence of variant must
be real and essential to the features and purpose of plaintiff’s product.
 The interim order passed by the learned single judge of the Madras High Court
was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was further held that
respondents have the right to sell their product and can continue selling on the
condition that they maintain proper record of India and export sales, a receiver
was also appointed for this purpose.
 Further it was observed by the Hon’ble Court that in such cases where there is
infringement of patent, copyright or trademark, the parties always continue with
the intention to obtain interim injunction, which is not a healthy practice and this
should not be the case.
Analysis:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this particular landmark case issued directions for all the
lower courts and tribunals for speedy disposal of matters pertaining to Intellectual
Property Rights in the courts of India. The dispute over the twin spark plug technology,
which involved two major automobile companies in India, went on for more than two
years and both the parties were locked up in this patent dispute. Due to such long time
both the parties suffered substantial damage. Keeping this in mind, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India expressed the view that the matters of trademark, patents and copyright are
pending for years and the parties to the suit are fighting only with a view to obtain
temporary injunction, which should not be the case. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed that such matters should proceed on day to day basis and should be concluded
within four months from the date of filing of the suit. All the courts and tribunals were
directed to follow the orders faithfully and punctually.
It is also clear as per the decisions, for the purpose of deciding the novel features to
constitute “pith and marrow” a purposive construction has to be given in order to make it
essential requirement of the invention that any variant would follow outside the
monopoly even if it could not have material effect upon the working of invention.”

6. Rahul Gaur, B-09, BBA LLB 5th
Year
Assignment Intellectual Property Law
6
Terms and sections used:
 The doctrine of equivalents is a legal doctrine where in a court is empowered to
hold a party to a suit liable for infringement of a patent either directly or
indirectly. This means that even if a party does not infringe a patent right/claim
directly or literally but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention, the
doctrine of equivalents will come into play.
 Section 106 of the Patents Act 1970 provides with the Power of court to grant
relief in cases of threats of infringement proceedings on baseless grounds to the
defendant. This section suggests that mere knowledge of presence of a patent will
not amount to constitute a threat to further proceedings against any party.
 Section 108 of the Patents Act 1970 provides for reliefs in suit for infringement.
This section is often used for seeking temporary reliefs for the plaintiff.