Supreme Court of India on Transfer of Patent Infringement Suit.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of the patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Ltd. in the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where Atomberg Technologies’ suit for groundless threats of patent infringement is pending. The Court observed that both suits involve substantially overlapping issues of law and fact. Considering principles of judicial efficiency, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, and risk of conflicting judgments, the Court held it appropriate to consolidate the cases in Bombay. The Court dismissed the respondent’s transfer petition seeking to move the petitioner’s suit to Delhi.

Background:

1. Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing home and kitchen appliances, launched a water purifier under the mark “Atomberg Intellon” on 20 June 2025.
2. Atomberg alleged that Eureka Forbes Ltd. made groundless claims to its distributors and retailers that the product infringed Eureka Forbes’ patents, causing business disruption. Atomberg filed a suit in Bombay on 01 July 2025 under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking relief from such threats.
3. Eureka Forbes Ltd. claimed that Atomberg’s product infringed their patented technologies and filed a patent infringement suit in Delhi under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, including an injunction application.
4. Both parties filed competing transfer petitions: Atomberg seeking to move the Delhi suit to Bombay, and Eureka Forbes seeking to move the Bombay suit to Delhi.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Bombay suit for groundless threats was filed prior in time to the Delhi infringement suit.
2. Both suits involve substantially overlapping issues regarding patent infringement, including identical questions of law and fact.
3. Jurisdiction in Delhi was claimed based solely on online purchase and delivery, which is insufficient compared to the parties’ business presence in Mumbai.
4. To avoid multiplicity, duplication of proceedings, and risk of conflicting judgments, it is prudent to consolidate the suits in Bombay.
5. The limited scope of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25 of the CPC does not extend to deciding which suit has broader scope; the focus is on efficiency and avoidance of multiplicity.

Decision:

1. Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025 filed by Atomberg Technologies is allowed; the Delhi suit (CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025) is transferred to the Bombay High Court to be tried along with Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025.
2. Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025 filed by Eureka Forbes Ltd. is dismissed.
3. Pending applications, including injunction applications, are to be disposed of expeditiously.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 104, Patents Act, 1970 – Suit for infringement of patent.
2. Section 106, Patents Act, 1970 – Suit for groundless threats of patent infringement.
3. Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure – Transfer of suits to avoid multiplicity and conflicting judgments.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1253

Case: Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025

Transfer Petition (C) Nos.: 1983 & 2174 of 2025