Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design

The Madras High Court has overturned a decision by the Patent Office that had denied TVS Motor Company a patent for its "vehicle frame assembly" invention. The court said the Patent Office did not properly examine how the design worked or whether it was truly obvious from earlier technologies.In its ruling dated November 28, 2025, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said the refusal order did not provide enough reasoning to conclude that TVS Motor's invention lacked originality. Because the analysis was incomplete, the court sent the matter back to the Patent Office for a fresh review. TVS had applied for the patent in 2014 for a scooter frame that uses gusset plates placed between cross members and side tubes to hold the utility box. The company said this design reduces pressure on the scooter's frame, prevents cracks and allows for more storage space. However, in 2024 the Patent Office rejected the request, saying earlier technical documents already showed similar ideas and that a skilled engineer could easily combine them. TVS Motor challenged that view, arguing that the cited documents did not show the same structure or address the same engineering problem. The company said the Patent Office simply assumed that the older designs would naturally lead to TVS Motor's solution without explaining how.The Patent Office defended its decision by calling the design a routine workshop improvement. It said prior documents of which one described using gussets to strengthen frames and another described a scooter with a storage box, which it believed made their combination obvious. The High Court disagreed. It said that even if the older documents were read together, they did not contain the arrangement invented by TVS. One document even suggested placing the storage box in a completely different location, which the court said showed a direction that ran contrary to TVS Motor's design.The court said the Patent Office had not explained how these documents would guide a skilled person to TVS Motor's solution. Referring to additional available documents, the court observed, “Without suggesting that any of the above would render the claimed invention obvious, I underscore the need for robust obviousness analysis. In the absence thereof in this case, a remand is warranted because it would be against public policy to grant a patent when unsure if it is novel and inventive.” As the analysis was missing, the court set aside the refusal order and directed the Patent Office to reconsider the application before a different officer. Case Title: TVS Motor Company Limited v. The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 60 of 2024 For Appellant: Advocates Damodar Vaidya For Respondent: Advocate A R Sakthivel, SPC withClick Here To Read/Download Order

Madras High Court Orders Fresh Review of TVS Motor's Patent Plea For Scooter Frame Design

Ayushi Shukla

Tags