In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court directed that the patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Limited against Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. be transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The Court observed that both companies’ cases one for patent infringement and the other for “groundless threat” were closely connected and should be heard together to prevent duplication and conflicting verdicts.
Background
The dispute arose after Atomberg, a Mumbai-based manufacturer of smart home appliances, launched a new water purifier under the brand “Atomberg Intellon” in June 2025. Soon after, Eureka Forbes, a leading player in the water purification market, accused Atomberg of copying its patented technology related to taste and TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) adjustment features.
Atomberg, however, alleged that Eureka Forbes was making “unjustified and intimidating claims” to its distributors and customers threatening legal action without basis. In response, Atomberg filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, seeking protection from such “groundless threats.”
Barely a week later, Eureka Forbes moved the Delhi High Court with a patent infringement suit, claiming that Atomberg’s new product infringed upon its intellectual property. Each side then sought to move the other’s case to its preferred forum, leading to two competing transfer petitions before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted that Atomberg’s Bombay suit was filed first, and both companies had their principal offices in Mumbai making the Bombay High Court the natural venue for adjudication.
The Court remarked that Eureka Forbes’ reliance on an online purchase made in Delhi to claim territorial jurisdiction was insufficient. “The respondent’s attempt to invoke jurisdiction in Delhi merely on the basis of online delivery cannot justify forum shopping,” the bench noted, cautioning against practices that waste judicial time.
It further highlighted that both suits revolved around the same set of facts and legal questions. “The issues to be determined in both suits are substantially overlapping,” the judgment stated, warning that separate proceedings could lead to “conflicting decrees and duplication of evidence.”
The Court also examined the legislative history of Section 106 of the Patents Act, clarifying that a suit for groundless threat of infringement has an independent cause of action and is not subordinate to a patent infringement claim.
Decision
Citing the need for judicial efficiency and consistency, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the Delhi suit titled “Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs. Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.” (CS COMM No. 663 of 2025) to the Bombay High Court. Both matters will now be heard together with Atomberg’s pending case (Commercial IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025).
“In the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the transfer is expedient,” the bench concluded. The Court also directed that the injunction applications in the suit be disposed of expeditiously, and dismissed the counter-transfer plea filed by Eureka Forbes.
Case: Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1253
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025