Sunday, February 10, 2008

Guest Post: Bajaj vs TVS Patent Dispute

SpicyIP has been reporting on the Bajaj-TVS feud. See here for previous posts. We now have a guest post from Sai Deepak, a very enterprising student from the Rajiv Gandhi School of IP Law, IIT Kharagpur: SPARKS FLY AS TITANS CROSS PLUGS

This post will attempt a more detailed look at the issues involved. There are two issues here: i) ii) Whether Whether Bajajs TVS patent infringes is valid in Bajajs the first patent? place?

As regards the first issue, one cannot arrive at a decision without possessing complete details of the technology used by TVS. However, according to TVS, the CC-VTi technology used in Flame has been developed by AVL, an Austria-based consulting firm and independent engine research institute which has to its credit several patents in automotive and automobile technologies. Autobuffs are likely to have heard Dr.Hans List who founded AVL. The CC-VTi technology could be based on AVLs patent titled Internal Combustion Engine comprising atleast Two Inlet Valves per Cylinder (EP0444018). Bajajs patent speaks of twin spark ignition technology and the TVS model uses 3 valves (2 inlet and one exhaust) in conjunction with 2 spark plugs. TVS has countered Bajajs allegation by citing the amendment of Bajajs Indian patent application on November 5, 2004, wherein its original claim of "An improved internal combustion engine for efficient burning of lean air fuel mixture used in engines working in four stroke principle, characterized in that said IC Engine comprising of. " was supposedly reduced to "An improved internal combustion engine for efficient burning of lean air fuel mixture used in engines working in four stroke principle, having two valves, characterized in that said IC Engine comprising of.,"(Business Line, 04-09-2007). In other words, the purported novelty of Bajajs invention lies in the conjunctive use of twin spark plugs in a single cylinder with 2 valves, and not the mere use of twin spark plugs in the engine. This is because, a multi-cylinder multi-valve engine would obviously comprise of more than one spark plug, making Bajajs invention obvious. This also restricts the scope of the claim to use of twin spark plugs in a single cylinder with only two valves. Since one is not in possession of Bajajs actual Indian patent document, one had to rely on its PCT Application PCT/IN03/000348, to corroborate TVSs arguments that the scope of the patent is limited. As inferred from the press release by Bajaj dated 03-09-2007, the PCT application contains the same subject-matter as that of the Indian patent, through which Bajaj seeks to acquire protection in 5 countries, notably China. However, this application does not indicate any such amendment as claimed by TVS, which could mean that such an amendment was made only to the Indian patent

application. Funnily, the Indian patent office journal (29-07-2005) refers to the Indian patent as An Improved Internal Combustion Engine Working on Four Stroke Principle with the PCT Application sharing the same title whereas the TIFAC database refers to the Indian patent as Internal Combustion Engine with Improved Combustion Characteristics. The possible explanation to this could be that the title of the invention was modified subsequent to the grant of the patent. TVS has further claimed that BAJAJs patent should be invalidated on grounds of obviousness, since use of twin spark plugs in a cylinder with two valves was well within prior art. Apart from the example of Honda cited by TVS, I believe that US Patent 5320075 titled Internal Combustion Engine with Dual Ignition for Lean Burn granted in 1994, may substantiate TVSs stance. A few other US patents 4958616, 4177782, 4177783 too speak of twin spark plugs in a single cylinder with two valves. Both DTSi and CC-VTi technologies are aimed at reducing exhaust emission and fuel consumption through fuller combustion of fuel. The written description provided by Bajajs PCT application itself suggests that there are various methods of improving combustion characteristics, some of which include improved ignition timing, improved combustion chamber design, improved valve timing and valve angles, etc. Through its written description, Bajaj has explained in sufficient detail the disadvantage of using a single spark plug, as opposed to using twin spark plugs located preferably diametrically to each other (US patent 4177783 too contains a similar arrangement). This is because of better-controlled ignition timing in the latter and lesser time taken for the flame to travel during combustion. It has specifically listed the merits of use of twin spark plugs in a lean mixture (a mixture where the proportion of fuel in air is lesser when compared to rich mixture). The novelty according to Bajaj, also lies in the use of a sleeve to protect the spark plug which is susceptible to exposure to lubricating oil. Such being the case, the emphasis and the scope of protection would be limited to use of twin spark plugs in a single cylinder with two valves, one plug protected by a sleeve. It is interesting to note that of the four patents cited in the International Search Report in the PCT application, 3 relate to inventions only on sleeve, and only one speaks of use of twin spark plugs. CC-VTi, on the other hand, predominantly is about even combustion of fuel by altering the air-fuel mixture received by the 2 intake ports or valves. Usually, a cylinder has one intake and one exhaust valve. Earlier, the charge (air-fuel mixture) was either subjected to swirl or a tumble depending on the load conditions and speed. The stirred or circumferential motion of charge in the cylinder is called swirl, whereas a motion directed towards the axis of the cylinder is called tumble. The former is used for a lean mixture and the latter is used for richer mixtures at high speeds. Several patents on the use of these phenomena exist. TVSs technology combines both these phenomena with 2 intake ports, providing swirl and tumble simultaneously, making the design compatible for both lean and rich mixtures. The degree of swirl would be greater for a lean mixture and the degree of tumble for rich mixture. This design ensures even combustion of fuel in all corners of the cylinder and is further marked by

the use of twin spark plugs, which as explained earlier, provides fuller combustion. This shows that the points of emphases in the designs of both these technologies differ considerably, notwithstanding the use of twin spark plugs in both instances. It was reported that following the victory in a lawsuit against Sri Lankan importer Ranatunga Motor and Chinese manufacturer Taian Chiran Machinery for imitating the Pulsar 180, BAJAJ gained above 9 per cent over its previous close of Rs 2,825.45 to close at Rs 3,080.30. Over 3.75 lakh shares changed hands on the counter (Business Standard, 08-022007). If TVSs contention of invalidity of Bajaj patent is upheld, one can only fathom as to what such a loss could mean for Bajaj, both financially and for its reputation. However, it is surprising that TVS, being a competitor, did not oppose the grant of the patent to Bajaj earlier. We can for Beer nw, instead of Petrol. Itz Cheaper!!