On 7th July, 2005, Viraj Ltd. (Viraj) was granted a patent under the Indian Patent No. 195904, with a priority date of 16th July, 2002. The title of the patent application was "an improved internal combustion engine work

On 7th July, 2005, Viraj Ltd. (Viraj) was granted a patent under the Indian Patent No. 195904, with a priority date of 16th July, 2002. The title of the patent application was "an improved internal combustion engine working on four stroke principle." The invention was called DTS-i Technology and it related to the use of twin spark plugs located diametrically opposite to each other in a small displacement engine with the cylinder bore diameter ranging between 45 mm to 70 mm. According to Viraj, this placement of the spark plugs enabled a better control over the ignition timing and lesser time was taken for the flame to travel during the process of combustion. The novelty also lay in the use of a sleeve to protect the spark plug which prevented exposure of the plug to the lubricating oil. In 2003, Viraj launched 'Inventa', a motorcycle which employed the DTS-i Technology in respect of which the patent was then pending. In the first eight months of that financial year itself, Viraj manufactured and marketed 8,14,393 two wheelers with the DTS-i Technology out of a total of 15,01,241 two wheelers which were sold by it amounting to 54.25% of its total sales. In 2007, CVS Ltd. (CVS) announced the launch of a 125-cc motorcycle under the trademark 'Sport' which was to be powered by lean burn internal combustion engine of bore size 54.5 mm with a twin spark plug configuration just like that of Viraj. CVS also stated that on 1st and 3rd of September, 2007, Viraj had issued certain groundless threats to dissuade CVS from launching 'Sport'. Hence, in October, 2007, CVS filed a suit under sections 105 and 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 in the High Court, alleging that the statements made by Viraj on 1st and 3rd of September, 2007 constituted groundless threats, and sought the intervention of the Court to restrain Viraj from interfering with the launch of 'Sport'. Further, CVS also filed an application for the revocation of Viraj's patent before the Indian Patents Appellate Board under section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. Upon the announcement by CVS, Viraj filed a suit for permanent injunction under section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 in the High Court to restrain CVS from using the internal combustion technology patented by Viraj and from employing the same in marketing 2-3 wheelers, including CVS's proposed 125-cc 'Sport' motorcycle. Vide its order dated 16th February, 2008, the Single Judge of the High Court restrained CVS from launching the proposed 125-cc 'Sport' motorcycle with the twin spark plug engine technology, as Viraj prima facie enjoyed the right of exclusive usage of the patent, granted to it by the Patent Office. The High Court held that Viraj had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction, and while granting the injunction was pleased to observe: ".... Suffice it to say now at this stage, prima facie there is novelty which means an invention and the same has been registered under the Patents Act... novelty has been on the face of it proved by the applicant by marketing the product to such a large extent and also without objection fairly for long ...." Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, CVS preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Appellate Bench of the High Court held that Viraj had not succeeded in establishing a 'prima facie' case of infringement in respect of its patented twin spark technology. The Division Bench observed that having regard to the nature of operation of the DTS-i Technology engine by virtue of twin spark plugs and that of CVS by virtue of receipt of air fuel mixture through two different intake valves, their points of emphasis differed considerably, notwithstanding the use of twin spark plug in both the technologies. The Division Bench further observed that the operation of the invention as claimed by Viraj appears to be plug centric and that of CVS was valve centric, and on scrutiny of the claim as set out in the final complete specification, it held that it found it difficult to countenance Viraj's claim that the CVS's product specification infringed Viraj's patented right. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, Viraj preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while prima facie agreeing with the order of the Division Bench, ordered that although CVS shall be entitled to sell its motorcycle 'Sport', but it shall maintain an accurate record of its entire domestic and international sale and directed the High Court to appoint a receiver in this connection. In its interim order, the Supreme Court reiterated that in matters relating to trade marks, copyright and patents, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which mandate that civil disputes should be heard on a day-to-day basis without any adjournments, except in circumstances beyond the control of the parties. It also directed that the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit. The Supreme Court directed that the timeline stipulated above be adhered to 'punctually and faithfully' by all courts and tribunals in the country. Elaborate the order and the directions passed by the Supreme Court and how it may impact the IPR pending litigation.