Madras High Court

Tvs Motor Company Limited vs The Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 8 July, 2025

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                                            C.M.A.No.2115 of 2021

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED: 08.07.2025

                                                                 CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                                     C.M.A.No.2115 of 2021


                     TVS Motor Company Limited
                     “Jayalakshmi Estates”
                     No.29 (Old No.8), Haddows Road,
                     Chennai 600 006, India.                                                    ... Appellant

                                                                    -vs-

                     The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs,
                     The Patent Office,
                     Intellectual Property Building,
                     GST Road, Guindy,
                     Chennai 600 032.                                                         ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 117-A of the

                     Patents Act, 1970, pleased to set aside the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by

                     the respondent in Indian Patent Application No.784/CHE/2012 and further

                     allow Indian Patent Application No.784/CHE/2012.



                                  For Appellant       : Mr.S.Harish
                                                        for M/s.Thriyambak J.Kannan


                     1/10




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )
                                                                                             C.M.A.No.2115 of 2021



                                  For Respondent        : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao, SPC

                                                              ***********

                                                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2021 rejecting

Indian Patent Application No.784/CHE/2012 in respect of a claimed

invention titled 'Accelerator Safety Control Device'. Upon request by the

appellant, the respondent issued the First Examination Report (FER) on

06.07.2018 raising objections inter alia on grounds of lack of inventive

step. Such objection was raised by citing prior art documents D1 to D3.

The appellant replied to the FER on 25.12.2018. By hearing notice dated

07.08.2020, the hearing was fixed on 23.09.2020. Pursuant to such hearing,

the appellant submitted written submissions on 06.10.2020, including by

providing a table to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior

art. The order impugned herein was issued in these facts and circumstances.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the

rejected claims and pointed out that only seven claims, including one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

independent claim and six dependent claims were made. He, however,

submits that the respondent proceeded to examine the first amended claims

submitted in response to the FER instead of examining the last amended set

of seven claims. By referring to independent claim 1, learned counsel

submits that it is a two part claim. By referring to figures 2 and 3 at pages

17 and 18 of the paper book, learned counsel submits that the claimed

invention is directed at providing an accelerator safety control device in the

handle bar of the two wheeler or three wheeler. For such purpose, he

submits that various components such as a sliding carrier, slide guide,

accelerator guide, brake link and guide stopper are used.

3. By inviting my attention to prior art D1, learned counsel submits

that the summary of D1 reveals that the object of the said invention is to

stop the motor vehicle even though the accelerator pedal may be mistakenly

depressed or stuck in such depressed condition. By referring to figure II

thereof, learned counsel points out that the safety accelerator brake control

operates in relation to the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal. Similarly,

as regards prior art D2, he submits that the said invention endeavours to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

resolve the problem associated with an automatic transmission vehicle,

wherein the driver engages both pedals at the same time. Likewise, by

referring to the abstract of prior art D3, learned counsel submits that it deals

with an accelerator pedal control system.

4. By turning to the impugned order, learned counsel points out that

the written submissions of the appellant were completely disregarded while

passing such order. In fact, he submits that the controller has erroneously

recorded that all the components of the claimed invention are present in

prior arts D1 to D3. For these reasons, learned counsel submits that the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the

problem to be resolved by the claimed invention is disengaging the

accelerator when the brake is engaged. As such, he submits that each of

prior arts D1 to D3 confront and resolve the identical problem. As regards

the contention that the claimed invention relates to a two or three wheeler

and not a four wheeler, learned counsel submits that any variation on that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

account is no more than a workshop improvement. In support of this

contention, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries,

(1979)2 SCC 511, particularly paragraphs 17 to 22 thereof. By relying on

the extract therein from Encyclopaedia Britannica learned counsel contends

that a monopoly cannot be created so as to interfere with the craftsman use

of his skill and knowledge. He also places reliance on the judgment of the

Delhi High Court in Lummus Novolen Technology GMBH v. Assistant

Controller of Patents and Designs 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4014, particularly

paragraphs 17 to 19 thereof, wherein the different tests for obviousness

analysis were discussed.

6. At the outset, independent claim 1 of the rejected claims should be

set out. It reads as under:

“We Claim:

1. An accelerator safety control device (201) comprises:

a handlebar (202);

an accelerator control grip (208) on one end of the handlebar (202); characterized in that,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

a sliding carrier (210) having a slide guide (211) fixed to the handlebar (202);

an accelerator guide (212) held by the sliding carrier (210) for arresting the lateral movement of the accelerator guide (212) and a throttle cable (207) is connected to the accelerator guide (212); and a guide stopper (213) mounted between the accelerator guide (212) and the accelerator control grip (208), wherein a brake link (203) from a brake lever (205) is connected to the sliding carrier (210) to disengage the accelerator guide (212) held by the sliding carrier (210) from the accelerator control grip (212) when brake is applied.”

7. The above claim is evidently a two part claim. It is further clear

that the claimed invention is intended to be deployed on the handle bar of a

two or three wheeler. Learned counsel for the respondent, however,

referred to dependent claim 6 to contend that the claims extend beyond the

handle bar and take within its ambit a foot operated brake lever. Learned

counsel is correct in contending that the said dependent claim extends to a

foot operated brake lever. On a holistic examination, it is nonetheless clear

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

that the monopoly claim is confined to an accelerator safety control device

for use in two or three wheelers and not in four wheelers.

8. When the claimed invention is compared with the cited prior arts, it

is evident that all three cited prior arts are intended to be applied to four

wheelers. While the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that

the problem to be solved in the claimed invention is identical to that

resolved in the cited prior arts is partly correct, resolving a problem in one

type of motor vehicle cannot be equated with resolving the same problem in

a different type of motor vehicle.

9. If the controller was of the view that a person skilled in the art

would be in a position to arrive at the claimed invention on the basis of one

or more cited prior arts, the reasons for such conclusion should have been

set out in the impugned order. On examining the impugned order, the

operative portion thereof reads as under:

“Technical features of the present system as characterized like sliding carrier, slide guide, accelerator guide, sliding carrier, and throttle cable, guide stopper, brake

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/07/2025 04:31:31 pm )

link, brake lever and control grip are already present in the cited documents D1, D2, and D3 and these are all common in any accelerator safety control device without which device will not function.

So claimed improvements are mere advantages rather than the advancement over the prior art.”

10. The above extracts disclose that the Controller recorded the

conclusion that components of the claimed invention were present in cited

prior arts D1 to D3 and that the claimed invention cannot be said to be a

technical advance over cited prior arts. The Controller is correct in stating

that technical advance is a requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) but it should

be noticed that it is open to the appellant to show economic significance as

an alternative to technical advance. This aspect has also not been noticed in

the impugned order.

11. For reasons set out above, the impugned order cannot be

sustained. Therefore, impugned order dated 18.01.2021 is set aside and the

matter is remanded for reconsideration on the following terms: