bajaj vs tvs- ppt

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. Vs.

T.V.S. MOTOR COMPANY

ECONOMIC & BUSINESS LEGISLATIONMBA-HR(SEM-II)-2012-SECTION-A

Amity Business School

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:-Mrs. MONICA SURI PRERNA GUPTA (06)

SHARVI RAGHUVANSHI (22)AASTHA BANSAL (28)PRERNA MEHRA (29)ERA SALUJA (38)KHUSHBOO GARG (41)

INTRODUCTION

INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872: It came into force on 1 September 1872. It is the main source of law regulating contracts in Indian law, as subsequently amended.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR):

They are country-specific.

Well-established statutory, administrative, and judicial frameworks for safeguarding IPRs in India.

India has complied with its obligations under the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).


PATENTS ACTIt means a patent for any invention granted under the Patents Act (S.2).

In India, the law governing patents is the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act).

Not all innovations are inventions within the definition of the Patents Act.


INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT:

In the case of a product patent, the following actions would amount to infringement: making using importing for these purposes, the product in India

without the permission of the patentee, etc.


ABOUT THE COMPANY

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED :

Bajaj Auto came into existence on November 29, 1945 as M/s Bachraj Trading Corporation Private Limited.

Headed by Rahul Bajaj.

The Forbes Global 2000 list for the year 2005 ranked Bajaj Auto at 1946.

It is based in Pune, Maharashtra, with plants in Chakan (Pune), Waluj (near Aurangabad) and Pantnagar in Uttaranchal.

Bajaj Auto is maker and exporters of motor scooters, motorcycles and the auto rickshaw.


TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED : Founded by TV Sundaram Iyengar in 1911.

Headquarter in Chennai and its manufacturing and R&D units are located at Mysore and Hosur, near Bangalore, and Baddi in Himachal Pradesh.

Engaged in the manufacturing of almost all kinds of automotive components.

The company launched the first of its two-wheeler product in 1980 which was a 50cc moped and is the third largest two-wheeler manufacturer in India and globally among the top ten.

The company has set up an overseas manufacturing unit in Indonesia.


Important dates

July 16, 2002 -

Bajaj files a patent application to get a patent on the Digital Twin Spark technology

October 30, 2003 -

Bajaj files international patent applications (PCT/IN03/000348) in various foreign countries subsequent to its application in India

July 7, 2005 -

Bajaj granted a patent on its DTS-i technology.

Bajaj Vs. TVS 7

August 24, 2007 -

TVS filed a revocation petition in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) at the Chennai Patent Office seeking the cancellation of the patent granted to Bajaj.

February 2008 -

Injunction imposed on TVS by Madras High Court for manufacture of “Flame”

10 March 2008 –

TVS launches “Flame” with single spark technology.

20 May 2009 –

Revocation of injunction by Madras High Court

Bajaj Vs. TVS 8

THE CASE IN BRIEF The plaintiffs in the suit (C.S. No.1111 of 2007), i.e. Bajaj Auto Ltd. along with the state of Maharashtra (represented by Mr. S. Ravikumar)

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 (Patent No. 195904).

Prohibiting the defendants from using the technology or invention described in the patents of the plaintiffs.

Preventing them from marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers that contain the disputed internal combustion engine or product that infringe the patent. They also claim damages for infringement of the patent.


The plaintiffs brought application before the same court seeking temporary injunction (O.A. 1357) 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 C.S. No.1111 of 2007.

The defendants in the case filed a suit (C.S. No. 979 of 2007) in the court under section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 for preventing the defendants (here Bajaj Auto Ltd. and the state of Maharashtra) from issuing threats that the plaintiffs are infringing the defendant’s patent, through various mediums to and thereby interfering with the launch of the TVS FLAME by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, filed an application (O.A. 1272 of 2007) for preventing the defendants, till the suit is pending.


FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case go through the various stages:

1. Bajaj’s patent

According to the Bajaj Auto Limited (appellant), it was granted Indian Patent No. 195904 in respect of a patent application titled “An Improved Internal combustion engine working on four stroke principle” – “DTS-i Technology" with a priority date of 16th July 2002. The patent was granted on 7th 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.


FACTS OF THE CASE

Thus, according to the applicant its invention was not obvious before the invention and it was novel, since it applied on the small bore lean burn engines. The industrial use of the invention can not be done away with as it helped the automobile industry in cutting short the fuel consumption. Moreover, after the invention, the share of Bajaj motorcycles with DTSi Technology has tremendously increased.

2. TVS launches FLAME- the Bone of Contention

The Respondents, M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited announced to launch motor bikes of 125-CC on 14th December 2007 under the trade mark 'FLAME'. The motorcycle was powered with a lean burn internal combustion engine of bore size 54.5 mm with a twin spark plug configuration, which according to the Bajaj Auto Ltd., infringes its patent. Therefore, before the launch of motor bikes, the applicants have brought the suit before the court to protect their intellectual property.


FACTS OF THE CASE

3. TVS files suit under section 105 and 106 of the Patents Act, 1970In October, 2007, the respondent filed the suit (C.S. No. 979 of 2007) before the Madras High Court under Sections 105 and 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 alleging groundless threat.

4. 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 No. 195904 before Indian Patents Appellate Board (“IPAB”) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. 5. Launch of the disputed bikeAs opposed to the expectations of the applicants, the respondents later , launched the bikes without making any change into that.


PLEADINGS BY THE PARTIES

APPELLANTS:

The patent is valid and subsisting. The respondents cannot escape by claiming that it is using 3 valves in the engine. The specifications similarities. Grant of injunction is essential to protect the right of monopoly conferred on the applicant by virtue of the patent. The damage caused by the infringing act will have effect on the market share loss etc. The applicants have launched its motorbike whereas the respondents have launched FLAME and did not sold the said motorbike on an extensive scale so the applicant is entitled for an order of injunction.


RESPONDENTS: Applicants has unjustly threatened and defamed the respondent instead of moving the Court to seek justice.

The applicant cannot seek patent for the use of two spark plugs in an IC engine.

The respondent has filed an application for revocation of the applicant's patent before the IPAB, Chennai even on 24th August 2007.

Arrangement of installation of two spark plugs in the respondent’s cylinder as per the US Honda Patent No. 4534322.

The three valve configuration and their working in the engine is protected by patent granted to AVL.

Arrangement is two spark plugs with three valves.


The claim of the applicant of inventing a spark plug centric engine comprising two spark plugs, which resulted in lean air fuel mixture is not an invention due to:

a) The applicant attempted to confuse the functioning of IC engine and particularly that of the spark plugs.

b) Use of two spark plugs in large bore IC engines denies the applicant from claiming protection over its patent.

The third valve in the three-valve arrangement of the respondent is not mere ornamental.

The applicant changed from plug centric description to valve centric description from the specification of the year 2003 and the amended specification of the year 2004.


JUDGEMENT OF THE CASEOrder of the Single Bench of the Madras High Court:

The Madras High Court restrained TVS from launching the proposed 125-cc Flame motorcycle with the twin spark plug engine technology.

The Court held that Bajaj had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction.

the court found that the invention satisfied the triple tests and was patentable.

The court recorded its satisfaction that Bajaj had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction.


Order of the Division Bench in Appeal:

The 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 observed that the points of emphasis differed considerably, not with standing the use of twin spark plug in both the technologies.

The Division Bench further observed that the operation of the invention as claimed by the Bajaj appears to be plug centric and that of TVS was valve centric.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the order of the single bench.


Order of the Supreme Court:

Bajaj preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ordered that TVS shall be entitled to sell its motorcycle ‘Flame’ but it shall maintain an accurate record of its entire domestic and international sale and directed the Madras High Court to appoint a receiver in this connection.

It also directed that the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.


LEARNINGS FROM THE CASE

The guidelines passed by the Supreme Court directing that once the hearing of

the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the

witnesses in attendance have been examined.

The direction of the Supreme Court, seeks to enforce a provision under which, an

adjournment on the ground that the pleader of a party is engaged in another court,

shall not constitute a ground for an adjournment.


THANK YOU


bajaj vs tvs- ppt

Documents