The Supreme Court recently transferred a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a related suit by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited concerning “groundless threat of infringement” is already pending.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed Atomberg’s transfer petition while dismissing Eureka Forbes’ counter-transfer plea, observing that, in the interest of saving judicial time and avoiding duplication of proceedings, it would be expedient to have both matters heard together before the Bombay High Court.

Facts:

Atomberg, engaged in the manufacture of home and kitchen appliances, launched its water purifier under the brand Atomberg Intellon on June 20, 2025. The company alleged that Eureka Forbes made oral communications to its distributors and retailers, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action, which adversely affected its business.

Consequently, Atomberg filed a suit before the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, which allows a person to seek relief against groundless threats of infringement proceedings.

Eureka Forbes, also a manufacturer of water purifiers, claimed that Atomberg’s Intellon purifier used its patented technologies, including customizable taste and TDS adjustment modes. It further alleged that Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Atomberg’s manufacturer, had earlier been its contract manufacturer and had access to confidential information.

After ordering and analysing Atomberg’s product in Delhi, Eureka Forbes instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, under Section 104 of the Patents Act, alleging patent infringement and seeking an injunction.

Before the Supreme Court, Atomberg argued that its Bombay suit was filed earlier and that both companies’ registered offices are in Mumbai. It accused Eureka Forbes of forum shopping by invoking Delhi’s jurisdiction solely on the basis of an online purchase and delivery. The company contended that both suits involved overlapping issues and facts, and allowing them to proceed separately could lead to inconsistent findings.

Eureka Forbes, on the other hand, maintained that its Delhi suit was the substantive one, dealing with core issues of patent validity and infringement, while Atomberg’s Bombay suit was merely procedural. It also asserted that Delhi had proper jurisdiction, as the product was purchased and delivered there, in line with Section 104 of the Patents Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Supreme Court declined to decide which of the two suits had a broader scope, holding that a claim under Section 106 of the Patents Act is based on an independent cause of action, separate from an infringement action under Sections 104 and 108. The court also noted that, unlike Section 36 of the repealed Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, the present law does not bar a groundless threat suit merely because an infringement suit has been filed.

Taking into account that Atomberg’s Bombay suit was filed earlier in time, that jurisdiction in Delhi was invoked only through an online transaction, and that the issues in both suits substantially overlapped, the Court directed that the Delhi suit be transferred to the Bombay High Court to be tried along with Atomberg’s pending case. It further directed the Bombay High Court to take up and dispose of the pending injunction applications expeditiously.

Case Details: ATOMBERG TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD V. EUREKA FORBES LIMITED & ANR.