Suit for Groundless Threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act Has Its Own Cause of Action — Not Subordinate to Infringement Suit: Supreme Court

“With the enactment of the 1970 Act, the negatory provision that was present in the 1911 Act has been done away with…” —  In a pivotal ruling delivered on October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India decisively held that a suit for groundless threats under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, constitutes an independent cause of action, distinct from a patent infringement suit under Section 104. The judgment came in the case of Atomberg Technologies Private Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. & Anr., Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025, where both rival parties had filed competing transfer petitions seeking consolidation of their respective suits before different High Courts.

The Apex Court allowed Atomberg's transfer plea, thereby shifting the Delhi High Court suit for infringement to the Bombay High Court, where Atomberg’s earlier suit for groundless threats was already pending. Dismissing Eureka Forbes' cross-transfer plea, the Court emphasized the need to avoid duplicity of trials, conflicting decrees, and judicial wastage.

“Jurisdiction Created Merely by Online Purchase Cannot Justify Forum Shopping” — Supreme Court Denounces Tactical Use of Delhi Delivery to Confer Jurisdiction

At the heart of the controversy was the claim of jurisdiction invoked by Eureka Forbes by purchasing Atomberg’s newly launched “Atomberg Intellon” water purifier online and having it delivered in Delhi. The Supreme Court sternly disapproved of such tactics, indicating it amounted to classic forum shopping, particularly when both companies had their registered offices in Mumbai.

"Jurisdiction at Delhi was invoked by the respondent no.1 by purchasing the product from an online portal and getting it delivered in Delhi"—the Court observed with caution, noting that this isolated act was insufficient to create a real and substantial cause of action in Delhi.

Rival Purifiers, Patent Threats, and Competing Lawsuits

Atomberg Technologies launched its "Intellon" series of water purifiers on June 20, 2025. Soon after, Eureka Forbes, a market competitor, allegedly issued oral warnings to Atomberg’s distributors and customers, claiming patent infringement and threatening legal action. In response to what Atomberg deemed groundless threats, it filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, seeking declaratory relief and injunction.

Meanwhile, Eureka Forbes placed an online order for Atomberg’s product, had it delivered in Delhi, and based on its internal technical analysis, claimed confirmation of infringement. It then filed a substantive patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, under Section 104 of the Patents Act.

Both parties filed transfer petitions before the Supreme Court — Atomberg sought transfer of the Delhi suit to Bombay, and Eureka Forbes sought the opposite.

Section 106 Suit is Not Ancillary — It Has a Life of Its Own

The Court conducted an in-depth examination of the statutory framework. Referring to the legislative evolution from the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 to the Patents Act, 1970, the bench held that Section 106 was deliberately crafted without the proviso that existed in the 1911 Act which had subordinated the suit for groundless threats to the pendency of an infringement action.

“The proviso as existed to the pari materia provision in the 1911 Act, was deleted… meaning thereby that the petitioner’s suit for Groundless Threat of Infringement governed by Section 106… has an independent cause of action” — the Court declared unequivocally.

The judgment distinguished the nature of the two suits: the Bombay suit by Atomberg was filed earlier and sought relief from threats affecting business interests, while the Delhi suit by Eureka Forbes was substantively based on alleged infringement. However, both suits revolved around the same factual matrix — Atomberg’s newly launched product and the alleged patent rights of Eureka Forbes.

Citing Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement: Apex Court Warns Against Parallel Trials with Overlapping Facts

Drawing heavily from its earlier ruling in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85, the Court emphasized that when suits involve overlapping parties, facts, and issues, allowing them to proceed in two separate forums leads to wasteful duplication, risks inconsistent findings, and undermines judicial economy.

“The cause of action alleged by one party as foundation for the relief… is the ground of defence in the other case. The issues… would be substantially common… The possibility that the two courts may record findings inconsistent with each other… cannot be ruled out” — the Court cited from Chitivalasa while rationalizing its decision.

The Court found that both the Bombay and Delhi suits were deeply interlinked — the cause of action, documentary evidence, and factual disputes were materially overlapping.

Transfer to Bombay High Court Ordered in Interest of Justice and Judicial Economy

After weighing all considerations, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the Delhi Suit — CS (COMM) No. 663 of 2025 titled Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. — to the Bombay High Court. It noted that the injunction applications in the transferred suit should be heard and disposed of expeditiously.

The Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1983 of 2025 filed by Atomberg was allowed, while the counter Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2174 of 2025 filed by Eureka Forbes was dismissed.

“In the light of the facts, submissions, materials on record and the foregoing discussion, in the interest of saving precious judicial time and to avoid duplication and multiplicity of proceedings… the transfer of the Delhi Suit to the Bombay High Court is expedient,” the Court ruled.

This judgment significantly bolsters the jurisprudence on the autonomous nature of Section 106 of the Patents Act and establishes that such suits are not subordinate or merely procedural. It also signals judicial disapproval of attempts at forum shopping through superficial jurisdictional triggers like online delivery.

The decision promotes consistency in patent litigation, especially when infringement and groundless threat suits stem from the same factual base, ensuring that such disputes are tried holistically by a single competent court.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2025