Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Limited Vs. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.
Date of Order: 17 October 2025
Case Number: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1253
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction
Hon’ble Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
---
Facts
Atomberg Technologies Private Limited, the petitioner, is a company engaged in manufacturing and selling home and kitchen appliances, including fans and water purifiers. In June 2025, it launched a new product—a water purifier under the name “Atomberg Intellon.” The product was designed with innovative technological features, including taste customization and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment functions.
Soon after the launch, the petitioner discovered that Eureka Forbes Limited, its industry competitor and one of India’s leading home appliance manufacturers, had allegedly made oral statements to distributors and retailers claiming that Atomberg’s product infringed upon Eureka Forbes’ patented technologies. The alleged statements created fear and confusion among Atomberg’s dealers and customers, resulting in commercial and reputational harm. Atomberg considered these allegations as “groundless threats of infringement” under the Patents Act, 1970.
Accordingly, on 1 July 2025, Atomberg filed a suit before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking relief against these threats.
On the other hand, Eureka Forbes claimed that it held valid patents over the technologies used in Atomberg’s “Intellon” water purifiers, specifically concerning taste customization and TDS adjustment mechanisms. Eureka Forbes alleged that its proprietary technologies were misappropriated by Atomberg’s manufacturer, Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd., who had previously worked with Eureka Forbes as a contract manufacturer.
Eureka Forbes purchased Atomberg’s water purifier online and received the product in Delhi. Upon technical analysis, it claimed to have found direct patent infringement. Consequently, it filed a patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court on 7 July 2025 under Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking an injunction restraining Atomberg from manufacturing or selling the infringing product.
Thus, two overlapping suits were pending simultaneously—Atomberg’s Groundless Threat suit in Bombay and Eureka Forbes’ Infringement suit in Delhi. Each party sought transfer of the other’s case to its own jurisdiction.
---
Procedural Details
Atomberg filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the Delhi infringement suit to the Bombay High Court.
Eureka Forbes, in response, filed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025, seeking transfer of the Bombay groundless threat suit to the Delhi High Court. Both matters were heard together by the Supreme Court.
Atomberg argued that its Bombay suit was the first in time and that both parties had their registered offices in Mumbai, making Bombay the natural forum for adjudication. Eureka Forbes countered that the Delhi suit, being a substantive infringement action, was the proper proceeding to continue, as the alleged infringement occurred when the product was purchased and delivered in Delhi.
---
Dispute
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide which of the two suits—one for groundless threats (Bombay) and the other for patent infringement (Delhi)—should proceed and in which forum. The key question was whether the Delhi infringement suit should be transferred to Bombay or vice versa.
The issue also involved determining whether both suits involved the same cause of action and substantially overlapping issues, thereby warranting transfer for efficient adjudication.
---
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by outlining the legislative background of Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, which allows a person aggrieved by groundless threats of patent infringement to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court explained that Section 106 of the 1970 Act was modeled on Section 36 of the repealed Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. However, the 1911 provision contained a proviso that prohibited the filing of a groundless threat suit if an infringement action had already been commenced and prosecuted diligently. When Parliament enacted the Patents Act, 1970, it deliberately omitted this restrictive proviso, thereby allowing both a groundless threat suit and an infringement suit to coexist as independent causes of action.
This statutory distinction was critical. It demonstrated that while a groundless threat suit protects businesses from baseless intimidation, an infringement suit addresses the substantive issue of patent violation. Both can arise separately but may involve overlapping factual matrices.
The Supreme Court noted three crucial factual aspects:
First, Atomberg’s groundless threat suit before the Bombay High Court was filed on 1 July 2025—six days before Eureka Forbes filed its infringement suit in Delhi on 7 July 2025.
Second, the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was invoked by Eureka Forbes merely because it had purchased the Atomberg product online and received delivery in Delhi.
Third, both suits concerned the same product, the same alleged patents, and the same business rivalry, thereby involving substantially overlapping questions of fact and law.
In such circumstances, the Court reasoned that maintaining parallel proceedings in two different High Courts would not only cause duplication of evidence but also risk inconsistent judgments. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, where it had emphasized that when two suits between the same parties involve the same set of facts and evidence, they must be tried by one court to avoid conflicting decisions and to ensure judicial economy.
Applying the ratio of Chitivalasa Jute Mills, the Court held that both Atomberg’s and Eureka Forbes’ suits were interlinked. The factual foundation of one formed the defence of the other. The core questions—whether Atomberg’s product infringed Eureka Forbes’ patents, and whether Eureka Forbes’ infringement claims were groundless—were inseparable.
The Court further observed that both companies had their principal places of business in Mumbai, and the alleged threats and communications also originated there. Therefore, the Bombay High Court was the more appropriate and convenient forum for adjudication.
The Court also rejected the argument of forum shopping raised by Eureka Forbes. It held that merely ordering a product online and arranging its delivery to a specific city does not automatically confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts of that city. Such artificial invocation of jurisdiction would amount to manipulation of forum selection.
The Supreme Court clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), allows it to transfer suits or proceedings between High Courts in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. Since the two suits involved identical issues, evidence, and witnesses, it was appropriate to consolidate them before one High Court.
The Court therefore concluded that in the interest of justice, efficiency, and avoidance of multiplicity, both suits should be heard together before the Bombay High Court. It directed that the infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes in Delhi be transferred to Bombay, where Atomberg’s earlier suit was pending.
---
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 filed by Atomberg Technologies and directed that CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025, titled Eureka Forbes Limited v. Atomberg Technologies Private Limited & Anr., pending before the Delhi High Court, be transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to be tried together with Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025 filed by Atomberg.
The Court also directed that both pending injunction applications be taken up and decided expeditiously by the Bombay High Court.
The corresponding transfer petition filed by Eureka Forbes, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025, was dismissed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized judicial efficiency, the avoidance of conflicting judgments, and the importance of the “first in time” principle when two related suits are filed by the same parties on overlapping issues.
---
Law Settled
The judgment reiterates that under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, a suit for groundless threats of infringement is an independent cause of action, not subordinate to an infringement action. However, when two such actions arise from the same transaction and involve the same parties and issues, consolidation before one forum is warranted to prevent duplication, conflicting judgments, and wastage of judicial resources.
It further clarifies that the mere act of purchasing a product online to fabricate territorial jurisdiction does not constitute genuine cause of action for forum selection in intellectual property disputes.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. “Balancing Patent Enforcement and Protection from Groundless Threats: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes”
2. “Forum Shopping and Patent Litigation: How the Supreme Court Streamlined Jurisdiction in Competing IP Suits”
3. “When Two Suits Collide: Understanding Judicial Efficiency in Atomberg Technologies v. Eureka Forbes”
4. “Groundless Threats vs. Patent Infringement: The Supreme Court on Consolidation of Overlapping IP Disputes”
5. “From Delhi to Bombay: The Supreme Court’s Approach to Jurisdictional Conflicts in Patent Litigation”
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
