Intellectual Property Cases must be decided at the earliest

Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 22nd July 2020

Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. TVS Motor Company Limited

Facts:

In 2005, the plaintiff (Bajaj) was granted with a patent in respect to an invention which was named as the ‘DTS-i Technology’ which resulted in better performance of the engine and a better control over the ignition of their motorcycles. It was stated by the plaintiff that their company had launched a bike “Pulsar” which contained the said technology and had sold over 30 lakh units and was dominant market share holder. In 2007, TVS had announced the launch of a vehicle named “FLAME” which had used the similar twin spark plug-in technology as of Bajaj. It was stated by TVS that Bajaj had made baseless threats to impede the launch of “FLAME”. A suit was filed by TVS in the Madras High Court under 105 and 106 of the Patent Act in the Madras High Court alleging the statements made by TVS and requested the intervention of the Court to inhibit Bajaj from stopping the launch of “FLAME”.     

The plaintiff had filed a suit under section 108 of the Patents Act, pleading grant of permanent injunction of the said patent to restrain TVS using the internal combustion invention specified in the patent and also manufacturing the same, including the vehicle “FLAME” which infringes the plaintiff’s patent. The plaintiff claimed damages for infringement amounting to Rs.10,50,000. A single Judge bench of the Madras High Court passed an order restraining TVS from launching the planned “FLAME” and it was observed by the Court that the plaintiff had succeeded in determining a prima facie case for granting injunction. The court accordingly granted an interlocutory injunction favouring Bajaj.

Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court, TVS appealed before the Madras High Court Division Bench. It was observed by the Division Bench that the plaintiff had not succeeded in establishing ‘prima facie’ case of patent infringement of the technology as there were differences between the engines as Bajaj was plug-centric and TVS was valve centric. The order of the Single bench was set aside by the Division Bench. TVS appealed before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether there is any patent infringement by TVS?
2. Whether the interlocutory injunction granted by the Single Judge Bench is admissible?

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court held that the respondent shall be allowed to sell their vehicle “FLAME” but an accurate report/record of the entire domestic and international sales of the vehicle and those records must be maintained and submitted to a receiver appointed by the Madras High Court every fortnight. 

The Supreme Court also held that matters concerning trademarks, patents and copyrights must proceed everyday and must be heard on a day to day basis. It was also held that the final judgment of a case must be delivered within four months from the date of filing of suit. The court insisted on the speedy disposal of Intellectual Property cases.