In a move aimed at curbing judicial overlap, the Supreme Court has ordered the transfer of Eureka Forbes Limited’s patent infringement case against Atomberg Technologies Private Limited from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court — where Atomberg’s related suit over “groundless threats” is already underway.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that consolidating both suits in one court would prevent duplication and save judicial time. Atomberg’s plea to shift the case to Mumbai was allowed, while Eureka Forbes’ counter-request to move Atomberg’s case to Delhi was rejected.
Atomberg, known for its home and kitchen appliances, launched its “Intellon” water purifier in June 2025. Soon after, it accused Eureka Forbes of warning distributors and retailers of alleged patent violations—claims that, Atomberg said, hurt its business prospects. The company then filed a suit in the Bombay High Court under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, which protects against baseless infringement threats.
Eureka Forbes, on the other hand, maintained that Atomberg’s product incorporated its patented features such as taste customization and TDS adjustment. The company asserted that Ronch Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Atomberg’s manufacturer, had previously been its own contract manufacturer and possessed confidential design information. Following product testing in Delhi, Eureka Forbes filed its infringement suit under Section 104 of the Patents Act, seeking an injunction.
Before the Supreme Court, Atomberg argued that both companies are based in Mumbai and that its suit had been filed earlier. It accused Eureka Forbes of forum shopping by choosing Delhi solely based on an online purchase made there. Both matters, Atomberg contended, hinged on overlapping facts and issues—risking contradictory judgments if heard separately.
Eureka Forbes countered that its Delhi case dealt with core patent validity questions and was thus the primary dispute. It claimed Delhi jurisdiction was legitimate since the allegedly infringing product was sold and delivered there.
The Supreme Court, however, found merit in Atomberg’s argument. It clarified that Section 106 of the Patents Act stands on its own and isn’t automatically eclipsed by a parallel infringement action. The Bench also pointed out that the earlier filing in Bombay and the shared factual matrix warranted a unified proceeding.
Emphasizing efficiency and consistency, the Court transferred the Delhi case—Eureka Forbes Limited v. Atomberg Technologies Private Limited and Anr.—to the Bombay High Court. It directed that pending injunction applications in both matters be taken up and decided promptly.
