Background
Following the June 2025 commercial launch of Atomberg Technologies' "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier, Atomberg alleged that Eureka Forbes pressured its commercial distributors with threats of patent infringement action. Atomberg responded by filing a groundless-threats suit under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970 in the Bombay High Court on 1 July 2025. Eureka Forbes then filed its own patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court on 7 July 2025 — triggering parallel proceedings on substantially overlapping facts in two different High Courts.
The Arguments
Atomberg argued Eureka Forbes had engineered Delhi jurisdiction through a single online product purchase, despite both companies maintaining their registered offices in Mumbai — a forum-shopping manoeuvre risking inconsistent findings across two courts. Eureka Forbes countered that its infringement suit was the substantive proceeding on validity and infringement, while Atomberg's suit was merely ancillary and defensive, and that Delhi had valid jurisdiction based on the in-forum transaction.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar transferred the Delhi suit to Bombay, holding: "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 Court noted Atomberg's suit was filed first, both suits shared substantially the same factual matrix, and both parties' registered offices sat in Mumbai — all favouring consolidation there.
Clarifying Section 106
Significantly, the Court distinguished the current Patents Act, 1970 framework from the repealed Patents and Designs Act, 1911, holding that a Section 106 groundless-threats suit is not automatically barred or rendered infructuous merely because the patentee later files an infringement suit. The two remain independent causes of action, each to be adjudicated on its own merits.
Practical Implications
- A single online purchase is unlikely, on its own, to anchor jurisdiction against a defendant whose real commercial base lies elsewhere — courts will scrutinise manufactured jurisdictional links.
- Parties threatened with infringement allegations retain a genuine, independent Section 106 remedy even after the rights-holder files its own suit — it is not extinguished or subordinated by the later filing.
- Filing first, in the forum where the real dispute is centred, carries real weight in any subsequent consolidation or transfer analysis.