{"id":10508,"date":"2025-10-23T11:02:29","date_gmt":"2025-10-23T11:02:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10508"},"modified":"2025-10-30T02:07:35","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T02:07:35","slug":"the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court on Consolidation of Overlapping IP Disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"case-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_Case_Atomberg_Technologies_vs_Eureka_Forbes_Supreme_Court_Transfers_Patent_Case_to_Bombay_High_Court\"><\/span>Facts of the Case: Atomberg Technologies vs Eureka Forbes: Supreme Court Transfers Patent Case to Bombay High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 \u2014 a water purifier under the name \u201cAtomberg Intellon.\u201d The product was designed with innovative technological features, including taste customization and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment functions.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/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\" >Facts of the Case: Atomberg Technologies vs Eureka Forbes: Supreme Court Transfers Patent Case to Bombay High Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Eureka_Forbes_Allegations\" >Eureka Forbes&#8217; Allegations<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Dispute_Before_the_Supreme_Court\" >Dispute Before the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Detailed Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Key_Factual_Findings\" >Key Factual Findings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Courts_Observations\" >Court\u2019s Observations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Legal_Principle_Under_Section_25_CPC\" >Legal Principle Under Section 25 CPC<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court\" >Decision of the Supreme Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Law_Settled_by_the_Case\" >Law Settled by the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Case_Summary\" >Case Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-supreme-court-on-consolidation-of-overlapping-ip-disputes\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Soon after the launch, the petitioner discovered that <strong>Eureka Forbes Limited<\/strong>, its industry competitor and one of India\u2019s leading home appliance manufacturers, had allegedly made oral statements to distributors and retailers claiming that Atomberg\u2019s product infringed upon Eureka Forbes\u2019 patented technologies. These statements created fear and confusion among Atomberg\u2019s dealers and customers, resulting in commercial and reputational harm.<\/p>\n<p>Atomberg considered these allegations as \u201cgroundless threats of infringement\u201d under the <strong>Patents Act, 1970<\/strong>. Accordingly, on 1 July 2025, Atomberg filed a suit before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Section 106 of the Act.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"eureka-claims\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Eureka_Forbes_Allegations\"><\/span>Eureka Forbes&#8217; Allegations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Eureka Forbes claimed ownership of valid patents over the technologies used in Atomberg\u2019s \u201cIntellon\u201d purifiers, particularly concerning taste customization and TDS adjustment mechanisms. It alleged that Atomberg\u2019s manufacturer, Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd.\u2014previously associated with Eureka Forbes\u2014had misappropriated proprietary technology.<\/p>\n<p>Eureka Forbes purchased Atomberg\u2019s purifier online and received it in Delhi. After analysis, it alleged direct patent infringement and filed a patent infringement suit before the <strong>Delhi High Court<\/strong> on 7 July 2025 under Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970. Thus, two overlapping suits emerged\u2014Atomberg\u2019s <strong>Groundless Threat suit in Bombay<\/strong> and Eureka Forbes\u2019 <strong>Infringement suit in Delhi<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Atomberg\u2019s Argument:<\/strong> The Bombay suit was filed first, and both parties had registered offices in Mumbai, making Bombay the natural forum.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Eureka Forbes\u2019 Counter:<\/strong> The Delhi suit was substantive and proper since the product was purchased and delivered in Delhi.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court needed to decide which of the two suits \u2014 the groundless threats suit (Bombay) or the infringement suit (Delhi) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"key-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Factual_Findings\"><\/span>Key Factual Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ol>\n<li>Atomberg\u2019s groundless threat suit (Bombay) was filed on <strong>1 July 2025<\/strong> \u2014 six days before Eureka Forbes\u2019 infringement suit (Delhi) on <strong>7 July 2025<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The Delhi High Court\u2019s jurisdiction was invoked merely because Eureka Forbes purchased the product online and received it in Delhi.<\/li>\n<li>Both suits involved the same product, patents, and business rivalry.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Court reasoned that parallel proceedings would lead to duplication of evidence and inconsistent judgments. It cited <em>Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85<\/em>, emphasizing that suits involving the same parties and facts should be tried together to avoid conflicting outcomes.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"court-observations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Observations\"><\/span>Court\u2019s Observations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Both companies had their main offices in Mumbai, and the alleged threats originated there.<\/li>\n<li>The Bombay High Court was deemed a more appropriate and convenient forum.<\/li>\n<li>The act of ordering a product online to claim jurisdiction does not create genuine cause of action.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"legal-principle\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principle_Under_Section_25_CPC\"><\/span>Legal Principle Under Section 25 CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision_of_the_Supreme_Court\"><\/span>Decision of the Supreme Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Supreme Court allowed Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 filed by Atomberg Technologies and directed that <strong>CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025<\/strong>, titled <em>Eureka Forbes Limited v. Atomberg Technologies Private Limited &amp; Anr.<\/em>, pending before the Delhi High Court, be transferred to the Bombay High Court. Both suits will now be tried together as <strong>Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Eureka Forbes\u2019 transfer petition (Civil No. 2174 of 2025) was dismissed.<\/li>\n<li>The Court directed that both pending injunction applications be decided expeditiously by the Bombay High Court.<\/li>\n<li>The decision reaffirmed the principle of <strong>judicial efficiency<\/strong> and the importance of the <strong>\u201cfirst in time\u201d rule<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_by_the_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled by the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-summary\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary\"><\/span>Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Atomberg Technologies Private Limited Vs. Eureka Forbes Limited &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Date of Order<\/th>\n<td>17 October 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Numbers<\/th>\n<td>Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025 INSC 1253<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Judges<\/th>\n<td>Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u2014 a water purifier under the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[336,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-10508","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-delhi-high-court","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}