Suit for infringement of patent and suit for groundless threat of infringement substantially overlap in issues - Sent to same High Court

Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Patent Infringement Suit to Bombay High Court. Atomberg Technologies' Victory in Legal Battle as Apex Court Combines Two Overlapping Patent Cases

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of a patent infringement case from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The case involves Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. and Eureka Forbes Limited, both players in the home and kitchen appliance sector. The decision aims to streamline judicial proceedings by consolidating two closely related lawsuits into a single trial.

The legal dispute began when Atomberg Technologies launched a water purifier under the brand "Atomberg Intellon" on June 20, 2025. Soon thereafter, Eureka Forbes accused Atomberg of patent infringement, claiming that Atomberg's product utilized patented technologies owned by Eureka Forbes. In response, Atomberg filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging groundless threats of infringement by Eureka Forbes.

Subsequently, Eureka Forbes filed a counter-suit in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, seeking an injunction against Atomberg for alleged patent infringement. This led to both companies filing transfer petitions-Atomberg sought to move the Delhi suit to Bombay, while Eureka Forbes requested the opposite.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, decided in favor of Atomberg. The Court observed that both lawsuits involved substantially overlapping issues and parties. It emphasized the risk of conflicting judgments and unnecessary duplication of judicial resources if the suits were tried separately in different jurisdictions.

The Court highlighted that the suit filed by Atomberg in Bombay was prior in time and that both companies have their registered offices in Mumbai, thus making the Bombay High Court the most appropriate forum for adjudication. The Court also noted that Eureka Forbes' attempt to establish jurisdiction in Delhi was based solely on an online purchase and delivery, which was deemed insufficient given the broader business context.

Citing the need to save judicial time and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the Delhi suit to the Bombay High Court. The injunction applications in the consolidated suit are to be addressed expeditiously.

This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to efficient legal processes and highlights the importance of avoiding forum shopping in legal disputes.

Bottom Line:

Suit for infringement of patent and suit for groundless threat of infringement substantially overlap in issues - In the interest of saving judicial time and avoiding duplication and conflicting decrees, transferring the suit for infringement from the High Court of Delhi to the Bombay High Court for joint trial along with the suit for groundless threat of infringement is justified.

Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 25, Patents Act, 1970 Sections 104, 106, 108

Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2796101