Supreme Court transfers Eureka Forbes patent suit against Atomberg to Bombay HC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of a patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes against Atomberg Technologies from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, consolidating proceedings in a single jurisdiction, as per the news report. 

The bench, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, delivered the verdict in Transfer Petition (Civil), allowing Atomberg’s plea to merge the ongoing litigation relating to alleged patent infringement and counterclaims of “groundless threats.”

According to news reports, Atomberg Technologies, a Mumbai-based smart home appliance manufacturer, launched its new “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier on June 20, 2025. Soon after, the company alleged that Eureka Forbes had issued oral threats of patent infringement to Atomberg’s distributors and retailers, warning of potential legal action. 

In response to these warnings, Atomberg filed a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025.

Eureka Forbes filed its own patent infringement suit on July 7, 2025 before the Delhi High Court, claiming that Atomberg’s purifier incorporated its patented features, particularly customizable taste and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment technologies. 

The company further alleged that Ronch Polymers, Atomberg’s contract manufacturer, had previously worked with Eureka Forbes, giving them access to proprietary information.

Atomberg contended that Eureka Forbes’ decision to approach the Delhi High Court represented forum shopping, noting that both companies are headquartered in Mumbai and that a single online purchase and delivery of Atomberg’s purifier in Delhi was insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Its counsel argued that maintaining suits in two separate courts could result in conflicting judgments, duplicated proceedings, and judicial inefficiency.

Eureka Forbes maintained that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction, given that the alleged infringement occurred through product purchase and delivery in Delhi, and asserted that its substantive suit should take precedence over Atomberg’s procedural action.

The Supreme Court observed that both suits involved substantially overlapping issues, evidence, and parties. While noting that the groundless threats claim was filed earlier, the bench clarified that under Section 106 of the Patents Act, such claims constitute an independent cause of action, separate from infringement suits under Sections 104 and 108. 

Citing its precedent in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004), the Court highlighted that parallel proceedings based on the same factual foundation could lead to inconsistent findings and duplicated trials, wasting judicial time.

“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… to the Bombay High Court,” the bench said. The court dismissed Eureka Forbes’ counter-transfer petition (T.P. (C) No. 2174/2025) and urged the Bombay High Court to dispose of the related injunction applications expeditiously.