While considering a case relating to competing transfer petitioners, the Supreme Court has held that the suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, has an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement governed by Sections 104 and 108.

The petitioner, through a Transfer Petition, sought transfer of the Suit for Infringement (Delhi Suit) instituted by the first respondent before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where the petitioner’s Suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement was pending adjudication. The first Respondent also filed a Transfer Petition seeking transfer of the Suit for the Groundless Threat of Infringement (Bombay Suit) instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Referring to the Patents Act,1970 and Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, the Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “Thus, it is clear that with the enactment of the 1970 Act, the negatory provision that was present in the 1911 Act has been done away with, meaning thereby that the petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, has an independent cause of action from that of a suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no.1, governed by Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, 1970.”

Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing and selling of home and kitchen appliances, launched a water purifier under the unique and distinctive mark "Atomberg Intellon. The petitioner later became aware that the first respondent, a competitor in the manufacturing of water purifiers, allegedly made groundless and unjustified oral communications to the petitioner’s distributors and retailers, claiming that the petitioner's product infringed their patents and threatened legal proceedings. In response to these groundless threats of patent infringement, the petitioner instituted the Bombay Sui, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking relief from such threats made by the respondent.

The first respondent, who is also engaged in the manufacturing and selling of home and kitchen appliances, allegedly discovered that the petitioner had launched "Atomberg Intellon" water purifiers featuring 3 patented technologies owned by them. Consequently, the respondent instituted the Delhi Suit for patent infringement under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, along with an application for injunction seeking to restrain the petitioner from patent infringement. Thus, the two competing petitions came before the Apex Court, where the petitioner sought the Transfer of the respondent’s suit for infringement instituted before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court and the respondent sought the transfer of the suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement instituted before the Bombay High Court to the Delhi High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025 was prior in time to the institution of the suit for infringement by the respondent on July 7, 2025. The jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi

“The question of fact, law, and the issues to be determined in the suit for groundless threat of infringement instituted by the petitioner and the suit for infringement instituted by the respondent no. 1 are substantially overlapping”, it further noted.

Reference was also made to a judgment in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004), where a Transfer Petition was allowed. The Bench thus held that 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 instituted by the respondent pending before the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where the suit instituted by the petitioner for Groundless Threat of Infringement is pending.

Thus, dismissing the transfer petition of the Respondent, the Bench allowed the Transfer Petition of the Petitioner and directed the transfer of the Delhi Suit titled “Eureka Forbes Limited Versus Atomberg Technologies Private Limited And Anr”, pending in the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court.

Cause Title: Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1253)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocates Niranjan Reddy, Pravin Anand, C Aryama Sundaram, Advocates Vaishali Mittal, Mahesh Agarwal, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Siddhant Chamola, S. Lakshmi Iyer, Devansh Srivastava, Gursimran Singh Narula, Manavi Agarwal, AOR E. C. Agrawala, Advocate Hiren Kamod, AOR Ayush Sharma, Advocates Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Ashish Sharma, Zafar Inayat

Respondent: Senior Advocates J Sai Deepak, Niranjan Reddy, Advocate Hiren Kamod, AOR Ayush Sharma,Advocates Avinash, Ashish Sharma, AOR M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali R. Mittal,Ruby Singh Ahuja, Madhu Gadodia, Siddhant Chamola, Gursimran Singh Narula, Roopali Gupta, Uzma Sheikh

Click here to read/download Judgment



Justice Pamidighantam Sri NarasimhaJustice Atul S Chandrukar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.