The Supreme Court on Consolidation of Overlapping IP Disputes

Facts of the Case: Atomberg Technologies vs Eureka Forbes: Supreme Court Transfers Patent Case to Bombay High Court

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. These 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 Act.

Eureka Forbes’ Allegations

Eureka Forbes claimed ownership of valid patents over the technologies used in Atomberg’s “Intellon” purifiers, particularly concerning taste customization and TDS adjustment mechanisms. It alleged that Atomberg’s manufacturer, Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd.—previously associated with Eureka Forbes—had misappropriated proprietary technology.

Eureka Forbes purchased Atomberg’s purifier online and received it in Delhi. After analysis, it alleged direct patent infringement and filed a patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court on 7 July 2025 under Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970. Thus, two overlapping suits emerged—Atomberg’s Groundless Threat suit in Bombay and Eureka Forbes’ Infringement suit in Delhi.

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 petitions were heard together by the Supreme Court.

• Atomberg’s Argument: The Bombay suit was filed first, and both parties had registered offices in Mumbai, making Bombay the natural forum.
• Eureka Forbes’ Counter: The Delhi suit was substantive and proper since the product was purchased and delivered in Delhi.

Dispute Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court needed to decide which of the two suits — the groundless threats suit (Bombay) or the infringement suit (Delhi) — should proceed and in which jurisdiction. The issue involved determining whether both suits shared the same cause of action and overlapping issues warranting transfer for efficient adjudication.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by explaining Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, which allows a person aggrieved by groundless threats of patent infringement to seek declaratory and injunctive relief. It noted that the 1970 Act deliberately omitted a restriction present in the 1911 law, allowing both a groundless threat suit and an infringement suit to exist as independent causes of action.

Key Factual Findings

1. Atomberg’s groundless threat suit (Bombay) was filed on 1 July 2025 — six days before Eureka Forbes’ infringement suit (Delhi) on 7 July 2025.
2. The Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction was invoked merely because Eureka Forbes purchased the product online and received it in Delhi.
3. Both suits involved the same product, patents, and business rivalry.

The Court reasoned that parallel proceedings would lead to duplication of evidence and inconsistent judgments. It cited Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, emphasizing that suits involving the same parties and facts should be tried together to avoid conflicting outcomes.

Court’s Observations

• Both companies had their main offices in Mumbai, and the alleged threats originated there.
• The Bombay High Court was deemed a more appropriate and convenient forum.
• The act of ordering a product online to claim jurisdiction does not create genuine cause of action.

Legal Principle Under Section 25 CPC

The Court noted that Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the Supreme Court to transfer suits between High Courts in the interest of justice and judicial efficiency. Since both suits involved identical issues, witnesses, and evidence, consolidation was warranted.

Decision of the Supreme Court

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 Bombay High Court. Both suits will now be tried together as Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025.

• Eureka Forbes’ transfer petition (Civil No. 2174 of 2025) was dismissed.
• The Court directed that both pending injunction applications be decided expeditiously by the Bombay High Court.
• The decision reaffirmed the principle of judicial efficiency and the importance of the “first in time” rule.

Law Settled by the Case

The judgment clarifies that under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, a suit for groundless threats is an independent cause of action. However, when two such actions arise from the same transaction and parties, consolidation is justified to prevent conflicting decisions and wasted resources. The Court also clarified that online product purchase does not establish valid territorial jurisdiction in IP disputes.

Case Summary

Disclaimer

The information provided here serves the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. Readers are advised to exercise discretion when interpreting this content. It may contain subjective analysis and potential errors in perception or presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi