This argument stems from the fact that Bajaj claims it holds the patent for the digital twin spark ignition (DTSi) technology, which uses two spark plugs for better fuel-efficiency and lower emissions, and that the "Flame's" technology specifications actually infringe on its patent. TVS on the other hand, contends that its CC-VTi technology does not infringe on Bajaj's patent because Bajaj's patent is not for a 'twin spark plug' but for two spark plugs in a two-valve internal combustion engine with a detachable fixed sleeve. TVS's internal combustion engine has three valves.

According to TVS, DTSi is actually a commonly used engine technology and should not be patented as the twin spark technology is a known 'prior art'. It has stressed that the creation of the new three valve engine powered by controlled combustion variable timing intelligent technology [CC-VTi] in collaboration with AVL of Austria leaves no scope for imitation. But on the other hand it should not be forgotten that the Chinese manufacturer Taian Chiran Machinery Co. Ltd. and its Sri Lankan distributor were ordered by the Sri Lankan High Court to withdraw their copy of the Bajaj Pulsar with DTSi technology from the market; and so Bajaj may be banking on this.

For the moment the Supreme Court has become the focus of attention. The Chief Justice heading the bench has ruled that it cannot pass any order without hearing TVS Motors. Audi Alteram Partum, an important principle of Natural Justice meaning 'No man can be condemned unheard' is an important aspect of legal proceedings which seems to hold forte. This certainly reflects on the order of the single bench, Madras High Court restraining TVS from booking, distributing and selling its motorcycle 'Flame' and its suspension the next day by a division bench ruling requirement of a counter-affidavit to be filed by TVS Motors and detailed hearing of the matter before passing of injunction order, if any.