Supreme Court Transfers Patent Infringement Suit to Prevent Forum Shopping and Multiplicity of Proceedings

 

Summary

The Supreme Court transferred a patent infringement suit from Delhi High Court to Bombay High Court, holding that the first-filed groundless threats suit should be adjudicated alongside the subsequent infringement claim to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings, and clarifying that Section 106 groundless threat suits can proceed independently under the Patents Act, 1970.

Background

The dispute arose following the commercial launch of Atomberg Technologies' "Atomberg Intellon" water purifier in June 2025. Atomberg alleged that Eureka Forbes engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and pressure its commercial distributors by issuing threats of legal action for alleged patent infringement. In response, Atomberg initiated legal proceedings under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, filing a suit for groundless threats of infringement in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025. Shortly thereafter, on July 7, 2025, Eureka Forbes filed a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, setting the stage for parallel litigation in two jurisdictions concerning substantially overlapping factual and legal issues.

Atomberg's Arguments

Atomberg contended that Eureka Forbes deliberately engaged in "forum shopping" by manufacturing jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court through a single online product purchase, notwithstanding that both companies maintain their registered offices in Mumbai. Atomberg emphasized that permitting separate trials in different High Courts on overlapping facts and legal questions would create substantial risk of inconsistent findings, undermine judicial economy, and waste precious judicial resources. Atomberg asserted that its suit, having been filed first and in the forum where both parties are principally located, should take precedence, and that the Delhi suit should be transferred to Bombay to ensure consolidated adjudication of all related issues before a single forum.

Eureka Forbes' Arguments

Eureka Forbes countered that its patent infringement suit constituted the "substantive" proceeding addressing the core issues of patent validity, infringement, and remedies, whereas Atomberg's groundless threats suit was ancillary and defensive in nature. Eureka Forbes maintained that the Delhi High Court possessed valid jurisdiction based on the transaction that occurred within its territorial limits, and that the infringement suit should proceed independently in Delhi without being subordinated to or consolidated with the Bombay proceedings. Eureka Forbes argued that the nature and significance of the infringement claim warranted independent adjudication in the forum where it was properly filed.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar allowed Atomberg's appeal and transferred Eureka Forbes' patent infringement suit from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The Court emphasized principles of judicial efficiency and consolidation, stating: "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 Court noted that Atomberg's suit under Section 106 was filed first, and that both suits involved substantially similar factual matrices and overlapping legal questions concerning the same patent and the same product. The Court observed that the location of both parties' registered offices in Mumbai further supported consolidation before the Bombay High Court.

Clarification on Section 106 of Patents Act, 1970

In a significant clarification on patent law jurisprudence, the Supreme Court distinguished the modern statutory framework from the repealed Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The Court observed that unlike the 1911 Act, Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, allows a "groundless threat" suit to proceed independently and is not automatically barred or rendered infructuous by the subsequent filing of a patent infringement suit. This means that a party threatened with infringement allegations may maintain its action for groundless threats even after the patent holder files an infringement suit, and such groundless threats proceedings constitute independent causes of action that must be adjudicated on their merits. This clarification provides important guidance on the autonomy of Section 106 proceedings and protects parties from strategic intimidation tactics that may precede formal infringement litigation.

Significance

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces several critical principles governing patent litigation in India. First, it affirms that courts will scrutinize attempts at forum shopping, particularly where jurisdiction is established through minimal or contrived connections such as single online purchases, when parties are principally located elsewhere. Second, it emphasizes the importance of the first-filed suit principle and consolidation of related proceedings to prevent inconsistent judgments and conserve judicial resources. Third, it provides definitive clarity that groundless threats suits under Section 106 maintain independent viability and are not subordinate to or subsumed by subsequent infringement suits. The decision sends a clear message that courts will not permit manufactured jurisdiction or strategic forum selection that undermines principles of judicial economy, and that parties seeking to intimidate competitors through infringement threats must be prepared to defend such conduct in the forum where the threatened party has properly initiated proceedings. This ruling will significantly influence litigation strategy in patent disputes and provides important guidance on territorial jurisdiction, consolidation, and the interplay between infringement and groundless threats proceedings under Indian patent law.