(Refer Slide Time: 12:59)

Some Important Patent Cases in India

"Bajaj Auto Ltd Vs TVS Motors Co. Ltd.

" Coca Cola Vs Bisleri

"Ericsson Vs Xiaomi

CUnnCANONCOUESE

One of the case is very popular some of you may be knowing it also the Bajaj auto case
versus TVS motors case, the other popular case which is Coco Cola versus Bisleri, then
another popular case that is Ericsson versus Xiaomi. So, we will be discussing these 3
cases briefly in this session. And this will give you a fair amount of idea that how IP
protection can help the organizations from lot of revenue loss or profit are gaining.

(Refer Slide Time: 13:51)

Bajaj Vs TVS
Digital Twin Spark ignítion technology (DTSI) Vs Controlled Combustion Variable Timing Intelligent
(CCVTi)
In 2007 Bajaj claims patent infringement against TVS at Chennai High Court. Single judge of Madras
HC issued a temporary injunction on 16th February, 2008 of the manufacture and sale of TVS Bikes
with alleged infringed twin spark
" TVS files a section 106 suit before the Madras High Court, claiming that Bajaj is making "groundless
threats of patent infringement" and that the court should declare that TVS does not infringe
. Bajaj Auto Limited was granted Indian Patent No. 195904 in respect of a patent
application titled
"An Improved Internal Icombustion engine working on four stroke principle" with a priority date of
16th July 2002. The said invention relates to the use of twin spark plugs for efficient
combustion of
lean air fuel mixture in small bore ranging from 45 mm to 70 mm internal combustion engine
working on 4stroke principle.
M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited has launched motor bikes of 125-CC on 13/14.12.2007 under the
trade mark 'FLAME' powered with a lean burn internal combustion engine of bore size 54.5 mm
with a twin spark plug configuration, with the Controlled Combustion ariable Timing intelligent
technology ("CC-VTI") engine which according to the applicant, infringes its patent No. 195904.

RPItL ONDt
CuTBCATON COUESE

Now, the first case that is the Bajaj versus TVS case it is a very popular case and in
this
slide have given a brief summary of the case. And I can request my students that you
I
 can go to different web sources and you will
find lot of material available with respect to
of innovations.
Bajaj and TVS case and they are kind of a archrival in the ficld
and
Now, this particular case which Iam discussing here it is related to dtsi technology
am
in which there is a fight between Baiai and TVS. Now, what is this case all aboutI
just going to read quickly. That in 2007 Bajaj claims patent infringement against TVS
motors in the Chennai high court, the Chennai high court issued a temporary injunction
on 16th February 2008 of the manufacture and sale of TVS bikes with alleged infringed
twin spark.

Now, TVS files a section 106 suit before the madras high court claiming that Bajaj is
making groundless threats of patent infringement and that the court should be declared
that TVS does not infringe the patents. Now, Bajaj auto limited was granted Indian patent
number 195904 in respect of a patent application that an improved internal combustion
engine working on 4stroke principle,with a priority date of July 2002.
Now, in this invention it is related to the use of twin spark plugs, for efficient
consumption of lean air fuel mixture in a small bore ranging from 45 millimeters to 70
millimeter internal combustion engine working on 4 stroke principles. So, basically those
who know about automobile they know that automobiles work on two
principles, one is
2 is stroke, another is 4 strokes. So, now, in 4 stroke engine it is said
that you haye a
better fuel combustion and nowadays all the motor cycles and the
automobiles are
working on 4 stroke principles.

Now, there is a continuous research going on that how to

achieve higher level of
efficiency in your combustion process and for that purpose Bajaj filed a
patent
application that we have developed a twin spark technology through which we can
achieve higher level of fuel combustion efficiency, and for
that purpose the patent was
granted to Bajaj auto limited. But TVS came into the picture
and said that there is not
sufficient ground to be granted patent to the Bajaj and therefore, they
of Bajaj.
objected the patent

So, TVS motor limited launched a motor

bikes of 125 cc in 2007 under the trade
mark
name of flame flame, many of you those
who are in India know about this flame motor
cycle. And this was powered with a lean
burning internal combustion system of bore size
 spark plug configuration with the control
millimeter again with a twin
of 45, 54.5 technology.
combustion variable timing intelligent gave a
technology as DTS-l while the TVS
saying the same
So, actually Bajaj was you will find
is CCVTI, but if you gointo thetechnicality
diferent name to it and that technologies are almost similar. They gave two
of both this
that the basic modus operand intothe patentissue; so
which according to
so that it docs not go
different (ypes of names Bajaj said that this flame
motor
patent number 195904. So,
the applicant infringes its infringing the patent of Bajaj which they
technology is
cvclewhich is based on CCVTI
technology.
got for their DTS-I

(Refer Slide Time: 18:05)

respondents, following were the grounds used by the respondents

The argument forwarded by theapplicants 1. The concept of two spark plugs beinggporior art
to challenge the patent of the "Internal Combustion Engine
US patent no: 5320075 titled Honda
produced various published papers 2.Takegawa Bros, NC 25E. Kawasaki
Cylinder heads and
with Dual lgnition for a lean burn"
two
3.
valves per cylinder with twin plugs. 4. The third valve
KZ 1000 SI have configured of
arrangement of the respondent is protected by patent licensed to it by AVL List GMBL: According to
the spark plugs in the engine in its vehicle "FLAME" are arranged in a different way
the respondent, plaintiff's applicant's patent.
in comparison to what is claimed by
date of application (16 July 2002) or in event
The patent granted to the applicant relates back to the in
the applicant, (Bajaj Pulsar "DTS-I Technology")
from the date of introduction of the product by 20 provision of Patents Act, 1970.
2003 and the said patent is valid for a period of years as per theproduct of the applicant ever
On the other hand, the respondent, who has not objected to the a revocation petition before the
since the year the patent application was made, has chosen to filetime on 24th August 2007.
IPAB,challenging the patent granted to the applicant for the first petition, the respondent has
Immediately within six days from the date of filing of the revocation bono fide conduct on
chosen to introduce its product, including "FLAME" which was not taken as
the part of the respondent.
FINAL JUDJEMENT:
1. Bajaj
was val1d2 given patent right as it was manufacturing the product for more thâh 5years. Thus the patent
waS TVS has been allowed to sell its bike with Twin Spark Plugs, with a court Receiver being
appointed to maintain books of profit.

NPTEL ONUNt
ICORKCE CaTPHCATION COUSE

Now, the arguments a started in the court and it was going to be the big issue at that time
and the TVS motors was arguing that Bajaj got the patent. But the technology was
already available in some other parts and they give their arguments that the concept of
two spark plugs being prior art produced various published papers they give the example
of one us patent 5320075 which titles as internal combustion engine with dual ignition
for a lean burn.

And the idea of allthese arguments was that that there were not sufficient grounds for the
novelty, for the non obviousness to get patent to the Bajaj motors and therefore, they
were trying to say that the patent which was granted to Bajaj should not be given. So, on
 Bajaj was
decision. So, court says that
when the court give their
the basis of that finally, 5 years.
manufacturing the product for more than
given the patent right as it was
Bajaj in year 2002, 16,
remember we said that the patent was granted to
So, now, if you its application, so they were trying to
TVS motors raised
July 2002. And in 2007 when claiming that it is the
named as flame and on which Bajaj was
launch a new velhicle patent of DTS-I
because they already had the
infringement of their patent So, introduction of
coming with CCVTI technology. So, to stop the
technology and TVS was
market Bajaj was trying to use
that patent.
flame motor cycle in to the
patent available
successful TVS was trying to counter that the
Now, to make the launch between twO
should be revoked. So, this was the argument
it
to Bajaj is not right and already sufficient
enjoying that patent for last 5 years and
parties, but since Bajaj was finally, the court said that the
patent is
where in the market. So,
numbers of motor cycles them for more than 5 years and
because it is available with
right which is with the Bajaj, that the patent is not right
and
came with those argument
during that period TVS never name of flame. So, they are
a new product under the
now when they are launching court made a receiver on the
sale of
happened ultimately that
saying that this is, and what sale of
profits which was accrued by the TVS motor by the
TVS motor cycles and all
the
to the Bajaj
countered by the receiver and a part of that was given
flame motor cycle was
motors.

see that how patent infringement could protect the

you can
So, this is one example where for Bajaj to protects its
technology
would have been difficult
Bajajmotors otherwise it popular
disaster for Bajaj motors point of view. The other
and there would have been a versus Bisleri. Now, Bisleri
we
Cola
attention is a case of Coco
case which needs your them for the bottled water
and it is
Indian brand and we all know
know is a very popular aqua.
water these are known as Bisleri, whether it is of
so popular that all types
of bottled
be all consider that if it is a bottled water it is a
relier
whether it is Ganga whether it is
Bisleri water.