Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | T.P.(C) No.-001983 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 39585/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Patent Law (Sections 104, 106, 108 Patents Act; Section 25 CPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the later-filed infringement suit should be transferred to the forum of a prior-filed groundless-threats suit when causes of action and issues substantially overlap and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Bombay suit for groundless threats under Section 106 Patents Act predates the Delhi infringement suit under Section 104. Issues of fact and law substantially overlap, posing risk of conflicting judgments. Under Section 25 CPC, transfer is warranted to avoid duplication and multiplicity. The deletion of the proviso in Section 106 (Patents Act) creates an independent cause of action. Transfer petitions serve judicial economy and prevent forum shopping. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner launched “Atomberg Intellon” water purifiers on June 20, 2025. It sued in Bombay on July 1, 2025 under Section 106 for groundless threats by respondent. Respondent bought the product online in Delhi, analyzed it, and sued for patent infringement in Delhi on July 7, 2025 under Section 104, seeking injunction. The two suits involve identical parties and overlapping issues. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts |
| Follows | Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 106 Patents Act (1970) now provides a standalone cause of action for groundless-threats suits; no proviso bars proceedings once infringement action is pending.
- Even where an infringement suit is filed in a different forum based on online sale, established business presence and earlier-filed actions justify transfer.
- Under Section 25 CPC, transfer petitions are narrowly canvassed—courts need not probe merits but must prevent conflicting judgments, multiplicity, and forum shopping.
- Supreme Court confirms that overlapping patent actions (infringement vs. threat suits) should be heard together for consistency and judicial economy.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted its limited ambit under Section 25 CPC—focus is on convenience and avoiding multiplicity, not merits.
- Historical review: Section 36 (1911 Act) proviso was omitted in Section 106 (1970 Act), creating an independent remedy for groundless threats.
- Chronology: Bombay suit (01.07.2025) predates Delhi suit (07.07.2025).
- Issues of fact and law—patent validity, infringement, and threats—substantially overlap.
- Applying Chitivalasa, transfer is warranted to avoid duplicate evidence, conflicting decrees, and wasted judicial resources.
- Bombay High Court is the appropriate forum—both parties headquartered in Mumbai and earlier suit pending there.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd.)
- Bombay suit predated Delhi suit.
- Both parties have registered offices in Mumbai—Bombay High Court is the natural forum.
- Respondent’s suit in Delhi is forum shopping based on online sale only.
- Overlapping issues risk conflicting judgments and duplication of evidence.
- Early service of Bombay suit placed respondent on notice.
Respondent (Eureka Forbes Ltd.)
- Delhi suit is substantive, involving detailed technical patent issues.
- Bombay suit is ancillary, limited to procedural injunctions against threats.
- Online purchase and delivery to Delhi suffices for territorial jurisdiction.
- Petitioner’s appearance in Delhi suit denotes acceptance of jurisdiction.
- Technical complexity in infringement suit favors Delhi High Court.
Factual Background
Atomberg launched its “Intellon” water purifier on June 20, 2025. Respondent allegedly made groundless oral threats of patent infringement to Atomberg’s distributors, prompting Atomberg to sue in Bombay under Section 106 on July 1, 2025. Respondent then purchased Atomberg’s purifier online in Delhi, confirmed infringement, and sued in Delhi under Section 104 on July 7, 2025. Two transfer petitions ensued: Atomberg sought transfer of the Delhi suit to Bombay; Eureka sought vice versa.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 104 Patents Act: remedy for patent infringement—provides injunction, damages.
- Section 106 Patents Act: remedy against groundless threats—standalone cause post-1970; no proviso excluding parallel infringement action.
- Section 108 Patents Act: cross-actions and rights of defendants.
- Section 25 CPC: transfer of proceedings—limited inquiry into duplication and forum convenience; not merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed