GROUNDLESS THREATS AND INFRINGEMENT COUNTERACTIONS: THE EMERGING PROCEDURAL CONFLICT IN ATOMBERG V. EUREKA FORBES

The Indian intellectual property landscape is evolving rapidly, and with it, the judiciary’s interpretation of nuanced provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. One such provision that has recently stepped out of obscurity is Section 106, which deals with groundless threats of patent infringement proceedings. The case of Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd. has thrust this long-overlooked section into the limelight, offering fresh judicial insight into its purpose, scope, and potential impact on innovation and competition in India.

This landmark decision underscores that patent rights, while essential to protecting innovation, must be exercised responsibly. The court’s interpretation not only provides relief for businesses targeted by unfounded infringement threats but also sets a precedent that could reshape how patent enforcement communications are handled in India.

BACKGROUND: THE SPARK BEHIND THE DISPUTE

Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (“Atomberg”), a home and kitchen appliance manufacturer, launched its “Intellon” water purifier on 20 June 2025. Shortly after, Atomberg alleged that competitor Eureka Forbes Ltd. (“Eureka”) made oral communications to Atomberg’s distributors and retailers, claiming that the Intellon infringed Eureka’s patents and threatening legal action. Viewing these threats as baseless, Atomberg filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on 1 July 2025 under Section 106 of the Patents Act, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against such threats. Subsequently, Eureka purchased an Intellon purifier online (delivered in Delhi) and on 7 July 2025 filed a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court under Sections 104 and 108 of the Patents Act, alleging that Atomberg’s product incorporated patented technologies such as taste-customization and TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) adjustment, and that one of Atomberg’s contract manufacturers had prior access to Eureka’s proprietary knowledge. As a result, two parallel suits arose Atomberg’s groundless threats suit in Bombay and Eureka’s infringement suit in Delhi both concerning the same product, overlapping patents, and largely the same factual matrix, prompting both parties to file transfer petitions under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move the other’s suit to their preferred forum.

UNDERSTANDING SECTION 106 OF THE PATENTS ACT, 1970

Section 106 is designed as a protective remedy for those threatened with patent infringement actions that have no reasonable basis. In essence, it states that:

“If any person, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a patent, the aggrieved person may bring a suit against such person for a declaration that such threats are unjustifiable, for an injunction against their continuance, and may recover such damages (if any) as he has sustained.”

This provision serves two key purposes:

1. To prevent misuse of patent rights by ensuring that patent holders do not intimidate competitors or disrupt markets through vague or baseless threats.
2. To protect fair competition and innovation by providing an aggrieved party with a swift legal mechanism to clear its name and maintain its market standing.

Despite being part of the Patents Act since its inception in 1970, Section 106 has rarely been invoked in Indian courts. It has long been overshadowed by the more commonly used enforcement mechanisms under Sections 104 and 108, which empower patent holders to initiate infringement suits. In practice, this has meant that the playing field has been heavily tilted toward patent owners until Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes brought Section 106 “out of obscurity.”

THE COURT’S ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes addressed several critical questions that had long remained unsettled under Indian patent law.

1. Can Section 106 Be Invoked Without an Explicit Legal Threat?

Eureka Forbes argued that Atomberg’s claim was premature because no formal infringement suit or legal notice had been filed against it. The Court, however, rejected this narrow interpretation. It held that Section 106 does not require an express written threat; a credible apprehension of litigation based on the conduct of the patent holder is sufficient. This interpretation aligns with international trends, where declaratory relief is often granted when a party faces an imminent risk of infringement action, even if no lawsuit has yet been filed.

2. Proactive Relief for Market Certainty

The Court acknowledged that in a fast-evolving technological market, companies like Atomberg cannot afford to operate under constant fear of litigation. The judgment emphasized that Section 106 exists to provide commercial certainty and to prevent the misuse of patent rights as tools of intimidation or deterrence against competitors. By granting a declaration of non-infringement, the Court reaffirmed that patent law should function as an enabler of innovation, not a weapon to stifle it.

3. Balancing Rights: Not Diluting Patent Protection

Importantly, the Court clarified that recognizing a proactive remedy for non-infringement does not dilute the rights of patent holders. Instead, it strengthens the system by allowing disputes to be resolved before infringement occurs, minimizing both litigation costs and market disruption.

Patent holders still retain full rights to enforce valid patents, but they must do so responsibly and based on clear evidence of infringement.

COURT DECISION AND JUDGEMENT

In its landmark judgment in Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Eureka Forbes Ltd., the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope and application of Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court held that a suit for groundless threats of patent infringement under Section 106 is independent of any patent infringement proceedings under Sections 104 and 108. It emphasized that alleged infringers do not need to wait for an infringement suit to be filed and can seek remedies such as a declaration, injunction, and damages under Section 106. In addressing the parallel proceedings Atomberg’s Section 106 suit in Bombay and Eureka Forbes’ infringement suit in Delhi the Court noted that the factual and legal issues were largely overlapping, involving the same products, patents, and business channels. To avoid duplication of proceedings, conflicting judgments, and forum-shopping, the Court transferred the Delhi infringement suit to Bombay to be consolidated with the Section 106 action. Consequently, Eureka Forbes’ petition to shift the Section 106 suit to Delhi was dismissed. The judgment sets an important precedent, affirming that Section 106 actions are standalone remedies and reinforcing the courts’ commitment to efficiency, consistency, and protection against unwarranted patent threats.

Conclusion: 

The Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes case represents more than a mere interpretation of Section 106 it symbolizes a shift in Indian IP jurisprudence toward greater fairness, accountability, and market integrity. By affirming that the misuse of patent threats is legally actionable, the judgment strengthens the framework that balances patent protection with healthy competition.

Section 106, once an obscure and seldom-invoked provision, now stands as a vital safeguard for businesses navigating India’s innovation ecosystem. It reminds patent holders that with great rights come great responsibilities and that the law will not tolerate the misuse of those rights to stifle genuine progress. As India continues its journey toward becoming a global innovation hub, decisions like Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes ensure that intellectual property law evolves in harmony with both technological advancement and ethical business practice.