Introduction:
This post discusses a patent infringement dispute adjudicated by the Madras High Court, involving Arumugam Rajendra Babu (“Plaintiff”) vs. five defendants including Ashok Leyland Ltd. (Defendant 1), Sun Mobility (Defendant 2), Virya Mobility 5.0 LLP (Defendant 3), Sun New Energy Systems (Defendant 4), and Sun Mobility Private Limited (Defendant 5). The plaintiff, an independent inventor, holding a patent for an electrically operated vehicle featuring a wind-operated battery charging system alleged that the defendants had infringed upon his patent. The Court dismissed both the Plaintiff’s suit and the defendants’ counterclaim, ruling that though the Plaintiff failed to establish patent infringement, revoking the Plaintiff’s patent would be too harsh a measure on an independent inventor. The Court ruled that both parties may coexist within their respective domains, with no order as to costs.
Plaintiff’s contentions:
The plaintiff claimed that his patent focused on a modular, slidable, and interchangeable battery housing system that allowed for quick and easy battery replacement without the need for manual connection or disconnection. The Plaintiff emphasized that his patented housing system could be used in various vehicle types, including two, three, four, and multi-wheeled vehicles, facilitating battery swapping at service stations and charging points. The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ quick interchange stations and smart battery solutions incorporated the essential features of his patent, particularly the modular battery housing concept, without authorization.
Defendants’ contentions:
Ashok Leyland asserted that their electric vehicles did not use wind-powered charging and that the battery-swapping technology incorporated in their vehicles was distinct and further contended that the Plaintiff’s patent lacked novelty and was merely an obvious arrangement of known elements. Sun Mobility argued that their swap stations, developed through significant investment and research since April 2017, enabled automated, semi-automated, or manual battery replacement under valid license agreements. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to prior art, lack of commercial use, and inconsistencies in claims, citing multiple global patents that anticipated the plaintiff’s invention.
Scientific advisor’s report and reply statement by the plaintiff:
The Scientific Advisor’s report supported the position of the defendants, confirming no overlap between the patents of the Plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s invention was invalid under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, and sought punitive damages for frivolous litigation arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were misleading and the Plaintiff’s primary aim was to disrupt the business operations of the defendants. The Plaintiff argued that the defendants were distorting facts and misrepresenting their own technology. The plaintiff further claimed that the concept of the defendants’ patent copied the modular, slidable battery system as described in the plaintiff’s patent.
Court’s analysis:
Based on the Scientific Advisor’s report, prior art, and expert testimonies, the Court observed that the plaintiff’s invention primarily related to a wind-operated battery charging system and a modular battery compartment, whereas the defendants’ battery-swapping stations operated independently of wind energy and were designed for automated, semi-automated, and manual battery replacements. The Court noted that various prior patents and publications had disclosed similar battery-swapping concepts before the plaintiff’s priority date, demonstrating lack of novelty and inventive step in the plaintiff’s patent. The Court also considered the plaintiff’s failure to commercialize his patent for over a decade, stating that mere grant of a patent does not automatically establish infringement unless proven with technical evidence. The Court stated, “While the prior art presented by the defendants indicates that some aspects of the plaintiff’s patent lack novelty, the fact that the plaintiff has exploited his patent technology over the last 18 plus years and has not actively hindered market competition (i.e., by directly preventing others from developing charging stations or electric vehicle technologies), deserves consideration.”
Court’s decision:
The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit, ruling that the Plaintiff failed to prove patent infringement since the defendants’ battery-swapping technology did not incorporate the Plaintiff’s wind-powered charging system. The Court ruled that the plaintiff’s patent should not be revoked at this stage, given that the plaintiff had already enjoyed the patent’s benefits for nearly its full term and that the plaintiff’s contribution to the field should be recognized. The Court rejected the defendants’ counterclaim for revocation, stating that the two patents could coexist. In conclusion, the Court ruled that the suit and counterclaim were both dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Citation: Arumugam Rajendra Babu Vs. 1.Ashok Leyland Limited, 2.Sun Mobility, 3.Virya Mobility 5.0 LLP, 4.Sun New Energy Systems, and 5.Sun Mobility Private Limited, C.S (Com.Div) No.400 of 2019
Authored by Dr. Sowmya Murthy, Patents Team, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
