SC Transfers Patent Infringement Suit to HC: Clarifies Scope of “Groundless Threats”

In a landmark ruling on 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court in Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. (2025 INSC 1253) addressed the increasing phenomenon of forum shopping in intellectual property disputes, while clarifying the independent statutory footing of “groundless threats” actions under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970.

The Court ordered the transfer of Eureka Forbes’ patent infringement suit from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court, where Atomberg’s earlier suit for groundless threats was already pending.

What's The Matter?

The case arose after Atomberg Technologies, known for its smart appliances, launched its new “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier on June 20, 2025.

Eureka Forbes, a long-standing market player, allegedly began warning distributors and retailers that the product infringed its patents on customizable taste and TDS adjustment technology.

These oral threats led Atomberg to file a groundless threats action before the Bombay High Court under Section 106 of the Patents Act, seeking an injunction against such communications.

A week later, Eureka Forbes instituted a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, alleging that Atomberg’s product unlawfully used its patented technology and that the company’s contract manufacturer had previously worked for Eureka Forbes implying access to confidential product designs.

Both parties then approached the Supreme Court, each seeking transfer of the other’s case to their preferred forum.

What Happened in Court?

Atomberg argued that both companies are headquartered in Mumbai, where the dispute’s commercial center of gravity lies, and that Eureka Forbes’ reliance on a single online purchase made in Delhi to invoke jurisdiction amounted to forum shopping. The petitioner emphasized that multiple suits on identical issues would lead to duplication of evidence and inconsistent judgments.

Eureka Forbes, in contrast, contended that the infringement suit was substantive while the groundless threats claim was only procedural, and that Delhi had jurisdiction since the infringing product was purchased and delivered there.

The Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar rejected the argument that a groundless threats suit was ancillary or subordinate.

The Court conducted a careful statutory analysis, noting that the old Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 contained a proviso barring such suits if an infringement action had been filed.

However, this restriction was deliberately deleted in the 1970 Patents Act, signalling Parliament’s intention to recognize groundless threats as a distinct and independent cause of action.

Thus, the Court held that the Bombay suit was not merely procedural, but legally autonomous from the infringement action, and that its prior filing warranted deference.

Given that both parties were Mumbai-based and the Bombay suit predated the Delhi one, the Supreme Court found it “expedient to transfer” Eureka Forbes’ infringement suit to the Bombay High Court. It directed that both cases be heard together, and that injunction applications be disposed of expeditiously.

The Court’s refusal to permit jurisdiction based on an isolated online purchase reiterates a crucial modern principle in IP litigation: jurisdiction must reflect genuine cause of action, not tactical convenience.

The decision also marks an important reaffirmation that “groundless threats” under Section 106 are a substantive statutory right, protecting businesses from reputational and commercial harm caused by unsubstantiated patent claims