BAJAJ Auto Limited vs. TVS Motor Company Ltd JT 2009

 

BAJAJ Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 

The breach of a patent holder's exclusive rights is known as a patent infringement. The behaviours or circumstances that constitute patent infringement are not clearly defined by the Indian Patents Act of 1970 ("Patents Act"). During the duration of the patent's valid term, the patent holder or patentee has the "exclusive right" to prohibit any third person from creating, using, offering, selling, manufacturing, etc. the patented invention, product, or method. In essence, this grants the patented innovation, product, or method monopoly rights. Therefore, any action that infringes on this monopoly qualifies as a patent infringement.

When a patent is violated, the patent holder has the legal right to sue the offending party to seek redress and damages. The Act's Sections 104 to 114 contain specific principles for patent infringement, including the burden of evidence, defences, court's authority, conduct that do not constitute infringement, reliefs, etc.

This case has two components, one involving patent infringement and the other about the prompt resolution of issues involving intellectual property rights. In the lawsuit, TVS Motor Company applied for and used the proprietary Digital Twin Spark Ignition (DTSi) technology without authorization (Defendant). The DTSi belonged to BAJAJ Auto Limited as its intellectual property (Plaintiff). Plaintiff submitted a patent application in 2002 and was given a patent in 2005 for the technique.

Facts:

• Plaintiff sued Defendant for patent infringement in 2007 and asked the Madras High Court to issue a permanent injunction under Section 108 of the Act. While the lawsuit for a permanent injunction was ongoing in the HC, the Plaintiff concurrently filed for an interim injunction.

• In parallel, the defendant filed a second lawsuit under Section 106, arguing that the plaintiff's allegations of infringement were unfounded since they had made improvements and modifications to the patented item.

• The HC issued an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and told the defendant that although they may carry out existing orders, they couldn't accept any new ones for automobiles equipped with this technology.

• However, the order was lifted following a defence argument, which prompted the plaintiff to petition to the Supreme Court of India (SC). 

Issues:

• Whether Defendant had actually infringed the patent even though it had in fact made improvements and changes to the patented article. 

Appeal to the SC:

• The SC did not, however, consider the case's merits. For the SC, the fundamental problem was that the legal dispute over a temporary injunction had lasted for around two years.

• The SC dismissed the appeal without considering the case's merits, emphasising that all cases involving IPR infringements must be quickly resolved by the trial courts, particularly at the point of awarding or denying injunctions.

• The SC also ordered the Madras High Court to hear the case every day and rule by no later than November 30, 2009.

Final Judgement for the Patent Infringement:

• In the end, the Madras High Court ruled that the plaintiff had the DTSi technology patent and has been utilising it for five years.

• "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 an essential requirement of the invention that any variant would follow outside the monopoly even if it could not have a material effect upon the working of invention," the HC stated in reference to the Doctrine of Equivalence.

TOPIC- BAJAJ Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited JT 2009 

NAME - Chetna Dubey 

INSTITUTION- Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU

DATE - 29th July 2022