M/S TVS Motor Company

Ltd vs M/S Bajaj Auto

Limited
By : Amey Patil
Mohit Malik
Pranav Pavithran
Vijesh Pillai

FACTS
1. Bajajs 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 7 th July,
2005.
2. 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.

3. Tests of Patentability - According to the

4.
5.
6.
7.

applicants, their invention was patentable

because it qualified the tests of novelty, nonobviousness and industrial application.
TVS launches FLAME 125
TVS files suit under section 105 and 106 of
the Patent Act , 1970.
Application for revocation of the applicants
patent .
Launch of the disputed bike .

Issue
1. Whether the Defendants infringed the patent or

combination even though it made some

improvements to the main patented article?
2. Bajaj Auto had accused TVS Motor of infringing its
patent on DTS-i ( Digital Twin Spark Plug ignition ) in
TVS Flame .
3. 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
1. Patent Act , 1970
2. Section 105 of the Patent Act, 1970- Power

of court to to make declaration as to noninfringement.

3. Section 106 of the Patent Act, 1970- Power
of court to grant relief in cases of groundless
threats of infringement proceedings
4. Section 10 of the Patent Act- Contents of
Specification

5. Section 48 of Patent Act,1970 Rights of

patentees
6. Section 2 of Patent Act, 1970 Definitions
and Interpretations
7. Pith and Marrow Test Used by Courts to
determine infringement.

Analysis
The 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.

Conclusion
Order of the Single Bench of The Madras High
Court
The interim injunction was granted in favour of
the applicant.
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 set aside the order of the

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