Bajaj Auto demonstrated its key strengths in the areas of product growth and development. Therefore, the organization sought to gain entrance into a competitive motorcycle market by using innovation and leadership to accomplish these objectives. Its collaborative efforts with Kawasaki emphasized its ability to work in conjunction with an experienced provider of motorcycles to achieve successful product development and results. The introduction of new models to the motorcycle market was a key indicator of the potential for success in expanding visibility and market share (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 6).
The protection of patents is a critical component of an organization’s strategy for long-term success and innovation. This is essential because it conveys the desire of the organization to improve its bottom line by using creative approaches to develop new products that will be attractive to consumers. For Bajaj Auto, this reflects the desire of the organization to expand internationally beyond its home base to promote its innovative products and patented technologies in new markets (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 6). Bajaj Auto was able to attract the interest of motorcycle enthusiasts throughout the world with this approach and provide significant support for its core innovative concepts on a larger scale (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 7). Therefore, the organization was in a competitive position for growth to expand the use of its patents to increase product development and manufacturing (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 7).
The introduction of TVS Motors to the motorcycle marketplace served a viable purpose to produce and market for a niche audience (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 7). TVS’ patent involving its CC-VTi technology was a first step towards building its innovative reputation for a core audience (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 8). With the evolution of product development at TVS, it was evident that there was expanded interest in the company and this product because of its level of efficiency and power (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 8). However, these discoveries led to a significant conflict with Bajaj Auto and its own patented intellectual property, and this served as the core of the argument against TVS (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 8). The lawsuit against TVS provided further ammunition for Bajaj Auto to support its claims and to emerge as the originator of the intellectual property in question (Vallabhaneni and Krishnan 8).
The circumstances that threatened the integrity of both TVS and Bajaj challenged the intellectual property merits and ongoing ability to innovate within each organization. Although both companies were invested in their own forms of technology, the perceptions of these technologies were diverse and were rooted in a lack of understanding of how each company intended to use its intellectual property. Therefore, deciphering the value of IP is of critical importance in order for an organization to achieve optimal success with its capacity to innovate (Rivette and Kline 2). Strategies must incorporate the findings associated with patents and the development of new technologies that must be protected through legal agreements (Yoffie 4). An organization in this capacity must develop a greater understanding of its strengths with respect to innovation and technological development in order to demonstrate the impact of long-term growth and success in these areas, as these efforts will allow organizations to enjoy steady revenues for the foreseeable future (Yoffie 5). In this example, Bajaj Auto was in a position to achieve great growth, but its claims against TVS perhaps challenged its knowledge and reputation in this area. Therefore, questions should be raised regarding the ability to innovate and to protect intellectual property without interference from other organizations.
Rivette, Kevin G., and Kline, David. “Discovering new value in intellectual property.”Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000: 1-12.
Vallbhaneni, Swarna Kumar, and Krishnan, Rishikesha T. “Innovation, technology and competitive strategy: Bajaj Auto and the motorcycle market (A).” Indian Institute of Management Bangalore 2009: 1-17.
Yoffie, David B. “Intellectual property and strategy.” Harvard Business Review, 7 April 2005: 1-9.