Supreme Court Directs Transfer of Patent Infringement Suit to Bombay to Be Tried Alongside Groundless Threats Action

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar heard rival transfer petitions concerning parallel patent litigation between two manufacturers of water purifiers. The Court adjudicated competing pleas to shift forum: the petitioner sought transfer of an infringement suit pending in the Delhi High Court to Bombay, where the petitioner’s suit for groundless threats of infringement was already pending, while the respondent sought the reverse transfer.

The Court allowed Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025 and directed consolidation by transferring the Delhi infringement suit to the Bombay High Court, while dismissing Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025. The Court noted that the two proceedings raised substantially overlapping questions of law and fact and that multiplicity of proceedings would cause duplication and risk inconsistent decrees. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement is governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act,1970. Prior to the enactment of the Patents Act, 1970, the law relating to patents was governed by the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter, the 1911 Act), which, vide Section 162 of the Patents Act, 1970, was repealed insofar as it related to patents. Section 36 of the 1911 Act titled Remedy in case of groundless threats of legal proceedings, while enabling a person to institute a suit to obtain an injunction against the continuance of threat of legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of patent, in proviso thereto provided that the said provision shall not apply if any action for infringement of the patent was commenced and prosecuted with due diligence. The same was thus at par with the provisions in the other statutes governing the intellectual property rights of Trade Mark and Copyright. However, while enacting the 1970 Act and providing Section 106 therein, the proviso as existed to the pari materia provision in the 1911 Act, was deleted.3 Thus, it is clear that with the enactment of the 1970 Act, the negatory provision that was present in the 1911 Act has been done away with, meaning thereby that the petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, has an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1, governed by Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970." The Court further directed that injunction applications in the transferred suit could be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.

Background The dispute arose after the petitioner launched a water purifier under the mark "Atomberg Intellon" on June 20, 2025. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.1 made groundless oral communications to its distributors and retailers, threatening patent litigation and thereby damaging business relationships; the petitioner filed a suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025. Respondent no.1 contended that the petitioner’s product infringed its patents (including features for customizable taste and TDS adjustment), purchased a sample online and, after technical analysis, filed a patent infringement suit under Section 104 in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025 seeking injunctions.

The petitioner argued that the Bombay suit predated the Delhi suit, both parties maintained registered offices in Mumbai, and the respondent’s invocation of Delhi jurisdiction via an online purchase constituted forum shopping. The respondent maintained that the Delhi suit was the substantive action requiring adjudication where the cause of action arose and that the groundless-threat suit was procedural and limited in scope. The Supreme Court examined pleadings and authorities, including Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, and found that the two suits involved substantially common issues and evidence, risking duplication and conflicting outcomes. As the Court observed in its cited precedent, "The issues arising for decision would be substantially common." Applying the limited scope of this Court’s transfer jurisdiction under Section 25 CPC, the Court concluded that transfer was expedient to avoid multiplicity and save judicial time. The Court allowed Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025, ordered the Delhi suit (CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025) to be tried along with Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025 in Bombay, dismissed Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025, and directed that pending applications stand disposed of, while permitting prompt disposal of injunction applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1253; Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1983 of 2025 and 2174 of 2025 Case Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr. (Delhi Suit: CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025; Bombay Suit: Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment