The Supreme Court of India, in a parallel patent litigation, has directed the transfer of Eureka Forbes Ltd.’s (“Eureka Forbes”) patent infringement suit pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, to be heard along with a prior suit filed by Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Automberg”) alleging groundless threats of infringement under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970.
The case resolves around competing transfer petitions, one filed by Atomberg seeking transfer of the Delhi suit to Mumbai, and another by Eureka Forbes seeking the opposite.
Earlier, in June 2025, Atomberg launched its distinctive mark “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier. Shortly thereafter, it alleged that Eureka made oral threats to distributors claiming patent infringement, prompting Atomberg to file a “groundless threats” suit before the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025.
Days later, Eureka Forbes filed a patent infringement suit in Delhi, alleging that Atomberg’s “Intellon” purifier copied its patented TDS adjustment modes and taste-control technologies, allegedly using confidential know-how obtained through a former contract manufacturer.
The Court clarified that Section 106 suits for groundless threats and infringement suits under Sections 104-108 of the Patents Act are distinct causes of action, rejecting Eureka’s contention that the latter subsumes the former. The Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar noted that the proviso in Section 36 of the repealed Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, which barred a threats action once an infringement suit was filed, was omitted in the 1970 Act, confirming Parliament’s intent to treat both remedies independently.
Referring to Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, the Court held that when two suits involve substantially overlapping issues and parties, and there is a risk of conflicting findings, consolidation before a single court is warranted.
Since the Bombay suit preceded the Delhi suit, the Court transferred the Delhi suit to the Bombay High Court, directing expeditious disposal of pending injunction applications.
