The Supreme Court of India today allowed a transfer petition filed by Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd., directing that a patent infringement suit filed against it by Eureka Forbes Limited be transferred from the High Court of Delhi to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
In a case involving competing transfer petitions, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that transferring the subsequent infringement suit to the forum where a prior suit for groundless threats was pending would be “expedient” to avoid “duplication and multiplicity of proceedings.” The court consequently dismissed a counter-petition by Eureka Forbes that sought the transfer of Atomberg’s suit from Bombay to Delhi.
Background of the Dispute
The matter originates from the launch of a water purifier, “Atomberg Intellon,” by the petitioner, Atomberg Technologies, on June 20, 2025. Following the launch, the petitioner alleged that respondent no. 1, Eureka Forbes, a competitor, made “groundless and unjustified oral communications” to the petitioner’s distributors and retailers, claiming the product infringed their patents and threatening legal action.
In response, the petitioner instituted a suit at the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025 (Bombay Suit), under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking relief from these alleged groundless threats.
Subsequently, Eureka Forbes alleged that Atomberg’s product featured patented technologies owned by them, specifically “customizable taste and TDS adjustment modes.” It was also alleged that the petitioner’s manufacturer, Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 2), had previously been a contract manufacturer for Eureka Forbes and had access to “confidential product knowledge.”
Eureka Forbes stated that it purchased the petitioner’s product via an online order, which was delivered in Delhi. Upon technical analysis, it alleged that patent infringement was confirmed. Consequently, Eureka Forbes instituted a suit for patent infringement (Delhi Suit) under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, seeking an injunction.
This led to two competing transfer petitions before the Supreme Court: Atomberg’s petition (T.P. (C) No. 1983 of 2025) to move the Delhi Suit to Bombay, and Eureka Forbes’s petition (T.P. (C) No. 2174 of 2025) to move the Bombay Suit to Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Atomberg, argued for transferring the Delhi Suit to Bombay for several reasons:
- The suit in Bombay for groundless threats was “instituted prior to” the Delhi suit.
- Both parties have their registered offices in Mumbai, making the Bombay High Court the “most appropriate forum.”
- The respondent was allegedly “deliberately engaging in forum shopping,” arguing that invoking jurisdiction in Delhi “based solely on online purchases and delivery” was an “insufficient ground” and an “abuse of the judicial process.”
- The issues in both suits “substantially overlap,” raising “identical questions of law and fact.”
- Allowing multiple proceedings would create a “risk of conflicting judgments, unnecessary duplication, and wastage of judicial resources.”
Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent, Eureka Forbes, submitted that the Delhi Suit should be retained for adjudication:
- The Delhi Suit, concerning the “core issue of patent infringement,” is the “substantive suit.”
- The Bombay Suit for groundless threats was described as “procedural and limited in scope,” “ancillary,” and one that “cannot substitute the substantive relief sought in the Delhi Suit.”
- The respondent denied engaging in forum shopping, asserting that the “cause of action for infringement arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court” through the online purchase and delivery.
- It was noted that the petitioner had “entered appearance and raised objections in the Delhi Suit, indicating acceptance of jurisdiction.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, limiting its scope under Section 25 of the CPC, stated it would “not enter into the question of determination as to which of the two suits has a wider scope.”
The judgment provided a significant analysis of Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 (Groundless threats). The Court observed that the predecessor law, the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (Section 36), contained a proviso stating that a groundless threat suit would “not apply if any action for infringement of the patent was commenced and prosecuted with due diligence.”
The Court noted that this proviso was “deleted” when the 1970 Act was enacted. The judgment held: “Thus, it is clear that with the enactment of the 1970 Act, the negatory provision that was present in the 1911 Act has been done away with, meaning thereby that the petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement… has an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement…”
Upon examining the pleadings, the Court highlighted three evident facts:
- The Bombay suit (July 1, 2025) was “prior in time” to the Delhi suit (July 7, 2025).
- “Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi.”
- The “question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined” in both suits were “substantially overlapping.”
The bench cited its precedent in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, noting that in such cases, “The issues arising for decision would be substantially common.” The Court further quoted the precedent on the risks of separate trials, including “duplication of recording of evidence” and the “possibility that the two courts may record findings inconsistent with each other and conflicting decrees may come to be passed.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held: “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 allowed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 and directed the transfer of the Delhi Suit (CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025) to the Bombay High Court to be tried alongside the Bombay Suit (Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025).
Consequently, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025, filed by Eureka Forbes, was dismissed. The Supreme Court also directed that the “injunction applications in the suit may be taken up and disposed of expeditiously” by the Bombay High Court.
