TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007. The defendant in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.S. No. 979 of 2007. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 places its claim principally on Section 106 of the Patent Act, 1970 seeking a declaration that the threats held out by the defendant on September, 1st and 3rd of 2007 that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant's Patent No. 195904; that the defendant is proposing to take infringement action against the plaintiff is unjustified. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that their product does not infringe the Patent No. 195905 of the defendant. The Plaintiff has also asked for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The defendant is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007. The relief sought for in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is one for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner infringing the defendant's Patent No. 195904 and their using the technology described in the said patent and manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125 cc FLAME motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringes the plaintiff's patent No. 195904. The defendant also seeks a preliminary decree to direct the plaintiff to render accounts of profits made by sale or offering for sale/export of 125 cc FLAME motorcycle or any other motorcycle of 100 cc to 225 cc range with twin spark plug technology infringing plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) Issues were framed in both the Suits as early as 24.11.2009. The question that had come up for consideration today is as to who should let in evidence first. Learned counsel appearing on either side, hence, sought for an order on this aspect, treating it as the preliminary issue to be settled first. Arguments by the respective Senior Counsel were made in detail as to the scope of the Suits, provisions of the Patent Act, in particular, Section 106 and 101-A as well as to Order 18, Rules 1 and 3 of the C.P.C.