Legal Review and Analysis of Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd vs Eureka Forbes Limited & Anr 2025 INSC 1253

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: ATOMBERG TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. vs EUREKA FORBES LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1253
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Original Jurisdiction
Transfer Petition Nos.: (C) No. 1983 of 2025 and (C) No. 2174 of 2025
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following statutory provisions:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 25 (Power of the Supreme Court to transfer suits, etc.).

• The Patents Act, 1970:
  Section 104: Governs the institution of a suit for patent infringement.
  Section 106: Governs the institution of a suit for "Groundless Threats of Infringement".

• Historical Reference: The judgment also discusses the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, specifically its Section 36, to highlight a key legislative change.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This case involved two competing Transfer Petitions filed before the Supreme Court. The core dispute was a patent conflict over water purifier technology.

• Petitioner: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd.

• Respondent: Eureka Forbes Limited.

• The Two Suits:
  Bombay Suit (Filed First): Instituted by Atomberg on 01.07.2025 under Section 106 of the Patents Act, seeking relief against alleged "groundless threats" of patent infringement made by Eureka Forbes to its distributors.
  Delhi Suit (Filed Later): Instituted by Eureka Forbes on 07.07.2025 under Section 104 of the Patents Act, seeking an injunction to restrain Atomberg from actual patent infringement.

Both parties sought to transfer the other's suit to their preferred forum, leading to the Supreme Court's intervention under Section 25 of the CPC.

4. Core Principle, Issue, and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Forum Consolidation in Parallel Patent Litigation

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was to determine which of the two High Courts—Delhi or Bombay—should adjudicate the two interconnected suits to serve the interests of justice and judicial efficiency.

Analysis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court's analysis was structured around several key principles and factual findings:

A. The Primacy of the First-Suited Forum
The Court placed significant emphasis on the chronology of the lawsuits. It was an undisputed fact that Atomberg's suit for groundless threats in Bombay (filed on 01.07.2025) preceded Eureka Forbes's suit for infringement in Delhi (filed on 07.07.2025). This temporal priority was a critical factor in the Court's reasoning, establishing Bombay as the first court seized of the dispute.

B. Independent Nature of a "Groundless Threats" Suit
The Court conducted a profound analysis of Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970. It contrasted this section with its predecessor, Section 36 of the 1911 Act. The 1911 Act contained a proviso that a groundless threats suit could not proceed if an infringement action was commenced and prosecuted with due diligence. The Supreme Court noted that this proviso was deliberately omitted in the 1970 Act.
Citation: The Court referenced an excerpt from an order dated 23.01.2020 in CS(COMM)-342/2019 by the Delhi High Court to support this legislative interpretation.
This omission led the Court to conclude that a suit under Section 106 is not merely ancillary or procedural but creates an independent cause of action, distinct from a suit for infringement under Section 104.

C. Substantial Overlap of Issues and Risk of Conflicting Judgments
The Court found that the factual and legal questions in both suits were deeply intertwined. The core issues—whether Atomberg's product infringed Eureka Forbes's patents and whether Eureka Forbes's threats were groundless—were two sides of the same coin. The evidence required, including technical analysis and testimony from common distributors and manufacturers, would be substantially the same. Relying on its precedent in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85, the Court highlighted the dangers of parallel proceedings: duplication of evidence, wastage of judicial resources, and the possibility of two different High Courts delivering inconsistent judgments.

D. Scrutiny of Territorial Jurisdiction
The Court took note of how jurisdiction was invoked in Delhi. Eureka Forbes had established jurisdiction by purchasing Atomberg's product online and having it delivered to a Delhi address. While not explicitly declaring this invalid, the Court implicitly treated this as a relatively weak basis for jurisdiction compared to the fact that both companies had their registered offices in Mumbai, which naturally placed them within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. This observation underpinned the finding that consolidating the cases in Bombay was the most appropriate course.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court allowed Atomberg's Transfer Petition and dismissed the one filed by Eureka Forbes.

• Transfer Petition (C) No. 1983 of 2025 (Atomberg's Petition) was ALLOWED.

• Transfer Petition (C) No. 2174 of 2025 (Eureka Forbes's Petition) was DISMISSED.

Direction: The suit for infringement filed by Eureka Forbes (CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025) pending before the High Court of Delhi was transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Supreme Court directed that this suit be tried jointly with Atomberg's suit for groundless threats (COMMERCIAL IP (L) No. 19837 of 2025). The Court also specifically instructed the Bombay High Court to take up and dispose of any injunction applications expeditiously.

6. Multiple Choice Questions  Based on the Judgment

1. The Supreme Court in Atomberg vs Eureka Forbes primarily allowed the transfer of the suit from Delhi to Bombay based on which of the following key principles?

a) The subject matter of the suit was related to a product manufactured in Bombay.
b) The suit filed first in time (the Bombay Suit) should be given precedence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
c) The judges of the Bombay High Court have more expertise in patent law.
d) The respondent, Eureka Forbes, had its manufacturing unit in Bombay.

b) The suit filed first in time (the Bombay Suit) should be given precedence to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

2. In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized a significant legislative change in the Patents Act, 1970, concerning a suit for groundless threats. What was this change?

a) The 1970 Act introduced a new provision for punitive damages in groundless threat suits.
b) The 1970 Act removed the proviso that barred a groundless threat suit if an infringement suit was pending.
c) The 1970 Act mandated that a groundless threat suit can only be filed after an infringement suit is decided.
d) The 1970 Act transferred the jurisdiction for groundless threat suits from District Courts to High Courts.

b) The 1970 Act removed the proviso that barred a groundless threat suit if an infringement suit was pending.