• Investment World
• eWorld
• Brand Line
• Mentor
• Life
• Brand Quest
• The New Manager

Stocks

• Quotes
• SE Diary
• Scoreboard
• Open-End Mutual Fund

Cross Currency

• Rates
  
  

Shipping

• Ports
  
  

Archives

• Yesterday
• Datewise
• Resources
• In Focus
• In Depth
• Events 2007

Group Sites

• The Hindu
• The Hindu ePaper
• Business Line
• Business Line ePaper
• Sportstar
• Frontline
• The Hindu eBooks
• The Hindu Images

Our Legal Correspondent

Advertisement

Chennai, Feb. 16 Two-wheeler major Bajaj Auto Ltd on Saturday succeeded in persuading the Madras High Court to restrain TVS Motor Company from launching the proposed 125-cc Flame motorcycle with the twin spark plug engine technology, which Bajaj claimed infringed a patent granted to it by the Patent Office.

Mr Justice P. Jyothimani, in his 56-page order, said he is of the considered view that Bajaj Auto prima facie enjoyed the right of exclusive usage of the patented technology.

“Suffice it to say now at this stage, prima facie there is novelty which means an invention and the same has been registered under the Patents Act… novelty has been on the face of it proved by the applicant by marketing the product in such large extent and also without objection fairly for long …,” the Judge ruled.

Referring to the contention of TVS Motors that the use of twin spark plugs in an engine of a small bore size cannot be an inventive step, the Judge took the view that when a petition for revocation of a patent, already granted, is filed it cannot be said that the patent validly granted should be presumed to be suspicious.

He ruled that the validity or otherwise of the patent depends upon the complexity of issues involved while arriving at a conclusion as to whether there has been an inventive step warranting the grant of monopoly privilege of commercial exploitation.

“These are all matters involving complexity of trail and at this stage it is only the prima facie which can be taken into consideration,” the Judge said.

Equally, whether the third valve used by TVS Motors in its engine for the 125-cc Flame motorcycle did or did not have any material impact — Bajaj Auto alleged that it did not — can be decided only after a full-fledged trial, he ruled.

The Judge also referred to the fact TVS Motors had chosen to file a petition seeking revocation of the patent granted to Bajaj Auto for the first time in August 2007 even though the latter had applied for the patent in 2002.

The Court also rejected the contention of TVS Motors that the ‘balance of convenience’ lay in not restraining TVS Motors from launching a motorcycle with the twin spark plug engine.

The company had based its contention on the grounds that should its petition challenging the grant of patent to Bajaj Auto fail it would not be difficult to calculate the damage suffered by the latter.

The Judge relied on the reasoning given by the Court of Appeals in the UK in Netlon Vs Bridport-Gundry Ltd ‘that it is impossible to calculate the adverse effect upon the appellants of their having to face adverse competition a year earlier than they would have to do…’

The suit was filed by the plaintiff (Bajaj) under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for relief of permanent injunction in respect of their patent No 195904 and/or from using technology/invention described in said patent, and/or manufacturing and marketing 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125-cc Flame motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringed plaintiff’s patent, claiming of damages for infringement of patent to the extent of Rs 10.5 lakh, etc.

TVS Motor Company had filed its suit on the basis of “groundless threat” of infringement of patent by the defendant (Bajaj) for declaring that the threats held out by the latter against plaintiff were unjustified and for declaring that the plaintiff’s product TVS Flame, which used two spark plugs with screw fitted sleeve and three valves, did not infringe patent of defendant, and for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendant from continuing issuance of threats.

More Stories on : Two/Three Wheelers | Corporate Disputes | IPR | Courts/Legal Issues

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
‘FMC can relist futures trading in pulses, grains’

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line