Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has transferred a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where Atomberg Technologies Private Limited’s suit alleging “groundless threat of infringement” is already pending. Allowing Atomberg’s transfer petition and dismissing the counter plea filed by Eureka Forbes, the Court noted that both cases arise from overlapping facts concerning competing water purifier technologies. The Bench held that a joint trial before the Bombay High Court would prevent inconsistent findings and ensure judicial economy.

The dispute arose between two companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of home and kitchen appliances, particularly water purifiers. Atomberg Technologies Private Limited launched its water purifier under the mark “Atomberg Intellon” on June 20, 2025. Soon thereafter, the company alleged that its competitor, Eureka Forbes Limited, had made oral statements to distributors and retailers claiming that Atomberg’s product infringed Eureka Forbes’ patents and that legal proceedings would follow. These communications allegedly caused apprehension among Atomberg’s distributors and customers. Atomberg subsequently filed a suit before the Bombay High Court seeking relief under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming that such statements constituted “groundless threats of infringement.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Customs and CBIC to Strictly Enforce Minimum Import Price on Soda Ash, Warns of Action for Non-Compliance

Eureka Forbes, on the other hand, alleged that Atomberg’s water purifier used its patented technologies, particularly customizable taste and TDS adjustment features, and that the petitioner’s contract manufacturer had previously been engaged by Eureka Forbes, providing access to confidential information. Eureka Forbes purchased Atomberg’s product online, received delivery in Delhi, and after technical examination, claimed infringement had occurred. It then filed a patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, along with an application for injunction.

Each party thereafter sought transfer of the other’s case, leading to the present proceedings before the Supreme Court. Atomberg argued that its Bombay suit was filed first, that both companies were based in Mumbai, and that parallel proceedings would result in duplication and conflicting judgments. Eureka Forbes contended that the Delhi suit was substantive and arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction, as the cause of action occurred through product delivery in Delhi. The Court examined the parties’ submissions, the timing of the suits, and the overlapping nature of issues relating to patent infringement and groundless threat of infringement.

The Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was limited and that it would not determine which of the two suits possessed wider scope. It recorded that “the petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement is governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970” and that this provision creates “an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1, governed by Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970.”

Referring to the legislative background, the Court stated that the earlier Patents and Designs Act, 1911, contained a proviso limiting the remedy of groundless threats when infringement action had been duly commenced, but that such a proviso was “deleted under the 1970 Act.” Therefore, the suit for groundless threat of infringement could stand independently.

The Bench recorded three crucial findings from the record: “(i) The suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on 01.07.2025 is prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent no.1 on 07.07.2025; (ii) Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi; (iii) The question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in both suits are substantially overlapping.”

Also Read: Section 12A Commercial Courts Act: Pre-Litigation Mediation Not Required in Cases of Continuing Intellectual Property Infringement : Supreme Court

Quoting from Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, the Court recalled that when parties, cause of action, and issues substantially coincide, “the possibility that the two courts may record findings inconsistent with each other and conflicting decrees may come to be passed cannot be ruled out.” The Court observed that hearing both suits together in one forum would “save precious judicial time and avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings.”

The Court ordered: “In the light of the facts, submissions, materials on record and the foregoing discussion, in the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, it would be expedient to transfer the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1 pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending.” The Court therefore “allowed the Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025” and directed that “the injunction applications in the suit may be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.” It further “dismissed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025.”

Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1253
Case Number: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 & 2174 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar