Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court

The Supreme Court has transferred a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where a related suit by Atomberg Technologies Private Limited for “groundless threat of infringement” is already pending.A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar allowed Atomberg's transfer petition and dismissing Eureka Forbes' counter-transfer petition.“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 Bench held.Atomberg had sought the transfer of the Delhi suit, instituted by Eureka Forbes, to the Bombay High Court, where Atomberg's suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, is pending. Eureka Forbes had, in turn, sought to transfer Atomberg's Bombay suit to Delhi.Atomberg, engaged in manufacturing home and kitchen appliances, launched its water purifier under the mark “Atomberg Intellon” on June 20, 2025. The company alleged that Eureka Forbes made oral communications to its distributors and retailers claiming patent infringement and threatening legal proceedings, which adversely affected its business. It then filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, which allows a person to sue for relief when another person issues groundless threats of patent infringement proceedings.Eureka Forbes, also a manufacturer of water purifiers, claimed that Atomberg's “Intellon” purifier used its patented technologies, including customizable taste and TDS adjustment modes. It alleged that Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Atomberg's manufacturer, had earlier been its contract manufacturer and had access to confidential information. After ordering and analysing Atomberg's product in Delhi, Eureka Forbes filed the Delhi suit on July 7, 2025, under Section 104 of the Patents Act, alleging patent infringement and seeking an injunction.Atomberg argued before the Supreme Court that the Bombay suit was filed earlier and that both parties' registered offices are in Mumbai. It accused Eureka Forbes of forum shopping by invoking Delhi's jurisdiction solely based on an online purchase. The company said both suits involved overlapping issues and facts, and separate proceedings risked inconsistent findings.Eureka Forbes contended that its Delhi suit was the substantive one, dealing with core questions of patent validity and infringement, while Atomberg's Bombay suit was merely procedural. It maintained that the Delhi High Court had proper jurisdiction since the product was purchased and delivered in Delhi, consistent with Section 104 of the Patents Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The Court declined to decide which of the two suits had a wider scope, noting that the petitioner's suit under Section 106 had an independent cause of action, separate from a patent infringement suit under Sections 104 and 108 of the Act. The Court observed that, unlike Section 36 of the repealed Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 does not bar a suit for groundless threats merely because an infringement suit has been filed.The Court noted that Atomberg's Bombay suit was filed before Eureka Forbes' Delhi suit, that jurisdiction in Delhi was invoked only through an online purchase, and that the issues in both suits were substantially overlapping. The Court said that allowing both suits to proceed separately could lead to duplication of evidence and conflicting decrees.The Court directed that the Delhi suit titled Eureka Forbes Limited v. Atomberg Technologies Private Limited and Anr. be transferred to the Bombay High Court to be tried along with Atomberg's suit. It further directed that the injunction applications in the suits be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.Case no. – Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025Case Title – Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 2030Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes' Patent Infringement Suit Against Atomberg's “Intellon” Water Purifier To Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags