PowerPoint Presentation

M/S TVS Motor Company Ltd vs M/S Bajaj Auto Limited By : Amey Patil Mohit Malik Pranav Pavithran Vijesh PillaiFACTSBajajs 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 2002. The patent was granted on 7th July, 2005.What was the patent all about? The applicants had come up with an invention called DTS-i Technology relating to the use of twin spark plugs for efficient combustion of lean air fuel mixture.

Tests of Patentability - According to the applicants, their invention was patentable because it qualified the tests of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial application.TVS launches FLAME 125TVS files suit under section 105 and 106 of the Patent Act , 1970.Application for revocation of the applicants patent .Launch of the disputed bike .

IssueWhether the Defendants infringed the patent or combination even though it made some improvements to the main patented article?Bajaj Auto had accused TVS Motor of infringing its patent on DTS-i ( Digital Twin Spark Plug ignition ) in TVS Flame .TVS had filed a suit to pre-empt attempts by its larger rival to stall the introduction of its Flame motorcycle. TVS, which wanted to introduce Flame in November, filed the suit under Section 105 and 106 of the Patents Act after Bajaj accused it of stealing technology.Rules Patent Act , 1970Section 105 of the Patent Act, 1970- Power of court to to make declaration as to non-infringement.Section 106 of the Patent Act, 1970- Power of court to grant relief in cases of groundless threats of infringement proceedingsSection 10 of the Patent Act- Contents of SpecificationSection 48 of Patent Act,1970 Rights of patenteesSection 2 of Patent Act, 1970 Definitions and InterpretationsPith and Marrow Test Used by Courts to determine infringement.

AnalysisThe court relied upon the principles in granting interlocutory injunction including any patent action. The principles are: The plaintiff must prove prima facie case that the patent is valid and infringed. Balance of convenience is in favour of plaintiff. Irreparable loss that may be caused to the plaintiff by not granting an order of injunction.ConclusionOrder of the Single Bench of The Madras High CourtThe interim injunction was granted in favour of the applicant.Order of the Division Bench in AppealThe appellate bench of the Madras High Court held that Bajaj had not succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of infringement in respect of its patented twin spark technology. The Division Bench set aside the order of the single bench. Order of the Supreme Court Quashing the order granting the interim injunction to applicants, the Court held the Respondents entitled to sell its product in the market, but maintaining an accurate record of all India and export sales. The Court appointed a receiver for the same.THANK YOU