Water Wars: Apex court moves Atomberg–Eureka Forbes patent battle to Bombay HC

In a significant ruling on jurisdiction in intellectual property disputes, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of a high-stakes patent infringement suit filed by Eureka Forbes Ltd. against Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court.

The apex court, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, delivered the verdict in Transfer Petition (Civil), allowing Atomberg’s plea to consolidate proceedings related to alleged patent infringement and counterclaims of “groundless threats” under one jurisdiction.

The Case at a Glance

Atomberg Technologies, a Mumbai-based smart home appliance manufacturer, launched its new “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier on June 20, 2025. Soon after, it alleged that Eureka Forbes, a leading competitor, began issuing oral threats of patent infringement to Atomberg’s distributors and retailers, warning of potential legal action.

Claiming these were unjustified and damaging, Atomberg filed a suit for groundless threats of infringement in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Eureka Forbes, in response, filed its own patent infringement suit on July 7, 2025, before the Delhi High Court, alleging that Atomberg’s purifier unlawfully incorporated its patented features — particularly customizable taste and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) adjustment technologies. The company further claimed that Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Atomberg’s contract manufacturer, had previously worked with Eureka Forbes, giving them access to proprietary information.

Atomberg argued that Eureka Forbes’ decision to move the Delhi High Court amounted to forum shopping, asserting that both companies are headquartered in Mumbai and that the alleged cause of action in Delhi — a single online purchase and delivery of Atomberg’s purifier — was an insufficient ground for jurisdiction.

Atomberg’s counsel contended that maintaining suits in two separate courts risked conflicting judgments, duplicative proceedings, and judicial inefficiency.

Eureka Forbes, however, maintained that the Delhi High Court had legitimate jurisdiction since the infringement was established through product purchase and delivery in Delhi, and that its suit, being substantive, should take precedence over Atomberg’s procedural action.

The Supreme Court observed that both suits — one alleging patent infringement and the other contesting groundless threats — involved substantially overlapping issues, evidence, and parties.

While acknowledging that the suit for groundless threats was filed earlier, the bench clarified that under Section 106 of the Patents Act, such a claim represents an independent cause of action, distinct from the infringement suit under Sections 104 and 108.

The Court cited its earlier precedent in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004), noting that parallel proceedings 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 held.

Outcome

The Supreme Court:

Allowed Atomberg’s transfer petition (T.P. (C) No. 1983/2025).

Directed that the Delhi suit — Eureka Forbes Ltd. vs. Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (CS (COMM) No. 663/2025) — be transferred to the Bombay High Court.

Ordered that both suits be heard together to ensure consistency.

Dismissed Eureka Forbes’ counter-transfer petition (T.P. (C) No. 2174/2025).

The Court also urged the Bombay High Court to dispose of the injunction applications expeditiously.

The verdict underscores the Supreme Court’s continued stance against forum shopping in IP disputes and emphasizes judicial economy through consolidation of overlapping suits.

By reaffirming the independence of Section 106 actions (groundless threats) from infringement suits, the Court has also clarified the contours of remedy and jurisdiction under the Patents Act, 1970, likely influencing future IP litigation strategies across industries.

Read More: Delhi HC orders to regulate patent and trademark agents

Read More: Philips loses 20-year patent battle in India over VCD technology