Sparks Fly in The Bajaj-TVS Spark Plug Controversy

Email Alerts | Invite a Friend

Bajaj contended that the CC-VTi technology (Controlled Combustion Variable Intelligent) used in TVS new 125 cc motorbike 'Flame' infringed on its digital twin spark ignition (DTSi) patent. Most of the two-wheelers of Bajaj including the high volume Pulsar, Discover and Avenger were largely based on the DTSi platform.

Bajaj had filed a final claim for patent of its DTSi technology on July 3, 2003, describing it as "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 ..."

On October 30, 2003 Bajaj filed application for approval of the patent in various countries. However, Bajaj amended its final claim on November 5, 2004, describing its patent as "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 ..."¹.

Bajaj was finally granted the DTSi patent for the Indian market on July 7, 2005. TVS contended that its CC-VTi technology did not infringe on Bajaj's patent. Moreover, it argued that the patent claimed by Bajaj was not for 'twin spark plug'but for two spark plugs in a two-valve internal combustion engine with a detachable fixed sleeve, whereas TVS's internal combustion engine had three valves.

TVS further amplified its argument saying that its technology included its in-house developed technology 'VTi'and the Austria-based global engine research institute AVL's patented '3 valve engine'technology.

While Bajaj was busy gearing up for the September 9 launch of its new 125 cc motorbike 'Exceed', on August 24, 2007 TVS filed a revocation petition in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) at the Chennai Patent Office seeking the cancellation of the patent granted to Bajaj.

TVS contended that the twin spark technology was a known 'prior art'². The company claimed that it had sent an advance copy of the patent revocation petition to Bajaj but made it public only after Bajaj's allegation of patent infringement against it.

According to TVS, DTSi was a commonly used engine technology and shouldn't have exclusive rights. On September 5, 2007, the patent attorney of TVS further stated that the technology was already patented in the US by Honda Motor Company, and as such, the patent was wrongly awarded to Bajaj. Bajaj seemed to be unperturbed by TVS's threat of libel suit.

It contended that it had a strong case against TVS, and was preparing its legal defense on three counts – "using the same technology for the same purpose (on a bike engine), using it for the same engine size and with the same construction."³ It also said that, the very fact that TVS had appealed for revocation of the DTSi patent implied that TVS was aware that its technology infringed on Bajaj's patent.

Bajaj further claimed that it would aggressively protect its IPR as the DTSi technology was central to its strategy for the future. Analysts felt that the new technology was important for both the companies as the 125 cc motorbikes were expected to take a major share of the estimated 7.8 million units market for two-wheelers in India.

Continued...

1] "Our Technology is Different from Bajaj's: TVS", www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com, September 4, 2007

2] 'Prior art' is a term used in patent law. It constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention is described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid

3] "TVS Threatens Bajaj Auto with Libel Suit over Tech Patent,"www.moneycontrol.com, September 3, 2007.