SUPREME COURT GAVE AN UNDERUSED PROVISION A MOMENT IN THE SPOTLIGHT: Transfer of Patent Infringement Suit from Delhi to Bombay for Consolidation with Groundless Threat Suit

Sections: 106 and 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended)

Case: Atomberg v. Eureka Forbes (Oct, 2025)

Facts:

1. Atomberg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) launched a water purifier called “Atomberg Intellon” in June 2025.
2. Eureka Forbes Ltd. (respondent no.1), a competitor, allegedly made groundless patent infringement threats to the petitioner’s distributors and retailers.
3. In response, the petitioner filed a suit (Bombay Suit) under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, in the Bombay High Court for relief against such threats on July 1, 2025.
4. Respondent no.1 filed a suit for patent infringement (Delhi Suit) under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, alleging patent violation by the petitioner’s product, which was analyzed and confirmed after purchase in Delhi.
5. Petitioner sought transfer of the Delhi Suit to Bombay High Court, while respondent no.1 sought transfer of the Bombay Suit to Delhi High Court.

Issue:
Should the suit for patent infringement filed in Delhi be transferred to the Bombay High Court for consolidation with the earlier filed suit for groundless threats of infringement?

Arguments:

• Petitioner argued:
  • Bombay Suit was earlier and filed before the Delhi Suit.
  • Both parties have registered offices in Mumbai, making Bombay the appropriate forum.
  • Respondent engaged in forum shopping by filing suit in Delhi based merely on online purchase and delivery, insufficient for territorial jurisdiction.
  • Issues in both suits substantially overlap, so multiple proceedings risk conflicting judgments and judicial resources wastage.
• Respondent argued:
  • The Delhi Suit is substantive, dealing with core patent infringement facts and is thus the appropriate forum.
  • The Bombay Suit for groundless threats is limited in scope and procedural.
  • Online purchase and delivery in Delhi confers proper jurisdiction.
  • Petitioner appeared in Delhi Suit, accepting jurisdiction.

Final Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner’s transfer petition and directed the transfer of the Delhi patent infringement suit to the Bombay High Court, where the groundless threats suit is pending.

This was done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, duplication of evidence, risk of conflicting judgments, and to conserve judicial resources. The respondent’s transfer petition seeking to move the groundless threats suit to Delhi was dismissed. Pending applications were disposed of, with directions for expeditious handling of injunction applications by the Bombay High Court.

This promotes judicial efficiency by consolidating suits with overlapping issues involving the same parties in a single forum i.e Bombay High Court, where both parties have significant business presence and the first suit was instituted.

---

CAN AN EXPIRED PATENT BE REVOKED? THE DELHI HIGH COURT RECONSIDERS REVOCATION LIMITS

Patents: Section 64, Section 107; Trademark: Section 57

Case: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH And Co. vs The Controller of Patents & Anr on 3 November 2025

This case involves Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG (Appellant) and the Controller of Patents & Anr. (Respondents). The appellant holds a patent, which the respondents challenged through a revocation petition. Concurrently, the appellant filed an infringement suit against the respondents for alleged unauthorized use of the patent. In the infringement proceedings, the respondents raised a defence under Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging invalidity of the appellant’s patent. The learned Single Judge in the lower court raised two preliminary issues:

• Whether a revocation petition is maintainable if the petitioner has raised a Section 107 defence in an infringement suit.
• Whether a revocation petition can be filed or continued after the patent has expired.

The Single Judge held that the raising of a Section 107 defence does not bar a revocation petition, and that a revocation petition could continue even after the patent had expired.

Appellant’s Arguments:

The appellant argued that allowing a revocation petition after the expiry of a patent is illogical. They contended that the very concept of revocation presupposes a subsisting patent. The appellant maintained that once a patent expires, it ceases to exist, and therefore, a revocation petition against an expired patent is untenable.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents contended that there is no explicit bar under Section 64 of the Patents Act to filing or maintaining a revocation petition after a patent has expired. They cited the decision in Star Textile Engineering Works Ltd v James Mackie Holdings Ltd, which relied on UK precedent (North Eastern Marine Engineering Co. Ltd. v Leeds Forge Company Ltd), to argue that revocation can, in principle, operate ab initio and treat the patent as though it was never granted.

Court Analysis:

The Court observed that while Section 64 does not explicitly bar revocation of an expired patent, the concept of revocation inherently implies that the patent is alive and subsisting. The Court drew a distinction between Section 64 of the Patents Act and Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, noting that, unlike trademarks, patents are revoked while subsisting, and it is difficult to conceptualize the revocation of a patent that has already expired. The Court expressed doubt regarding the respondents’ argument that a revocation could take effect ab initio post-expiry, emphasizing that this does not address the issue of maintainability of the petition after the patent’s natural expiration.

Court Order:

The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 17 November 2025 and appointed Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned Senior Counsel, as amicus to assist on the issue. Meanwhile, the operation of the Single Judge’s impugned order was stayed. The Court directed the parties to file bulleted short notes of their submissions with cross-references to the record before the next date. The Court clarified that the observations made were tentative and should not be treated as any expression of opinion on the merits.

Conclusion:

The Court indicated prima facie disagreement with the Single Judge’s finding that a revocation petition could be maintained after a patent’s expiry, emphasizing that revocation inherently presupposes a subsisting patent. The matter was adjourned for a detailed hearing with amicus assistance, and the operation of the previous order was stayed pending further consideration.

---

COURT SETS ASIDE REJECTION OF DATA LINEAGE VISUALISATION PATENT

The Patents Act: Section 2(1)(j), Section 3(k)

Case: Oa/57/2020/Pt/Chn vs The Controller Of Patents & Designs on 4 November, 2025

In an appeal filed by Ab Initio Technology LLC, challenging the Controller’s rejection of its patent application (4693/CHENP/2010) relating to a method for generating graphical data lineage diagrams, the Controller had rejected the application on the grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j), and non-patentability under Section 3(k), along with objections under Sections 3(n) and 10(4)(c). The Madras High Court, by judgment dated 4 November 2025, set aside the refusal, holding that the invention met statutory requirements and offered a clear technical contribution.

Appellant’s Argument:

Ab Initio argued that the invention was centred on the method of retrieving, tracing, and visually representing complete upstream and downstream data lineage. Moreover, Ab initio emphasized that the cited document D1 addressed data hierarchies of entities and relationships, whereas the claimed invention was directed to data lineage across entire data sets, including configuration information, metadata querying, and dynamic lineage retrieval.

The company contended that the prior art cited by the Patent Office did not disclose these features and therefore could not render the claimed invention obvious. Ab Initio further argued that the Controller erred in treating the invention as merely a representation of relationships rather than a technical solution to a specific technical problem.

Relying on judicial precedents and the Patent Office’s CRI Guidelines, Ab Initio submitted that the claimed method made a clear technical contribution and produced a technical effect. Therefore, it could not be excluded under Section 3(k), even though it was computer-implemented.

Respondent’s Argument:

The Patent Office maintained that the claimed features were implemented entirely through computer software and amounted to nothing more than an algorithm or computer programme per se. According to the Controller, querying metadata and representing relationships were already disclosed in the cited prior art, and the invention lacked inventive step. The Office further argued that the subject matter was barred under Section 3(k) as a computer programme per se.

Court Analysis and Findings:

The Court observed that the prior art relied upon by the Patent Office failed to disclose the essential features of Ab Initio’s invention. Relying on Agriboard International LLC and Agfa NV, the Court emphasised that an inventive step analysis must focus on the specific problem addressed and the technical differences between the invention and prior art. The Court noted that the claimed method introduced a specific technical approach for tracing complete upstream and downstream data lineage and identifying intermediate, modified, or problematic data, capabilities that were neither taught nor suggested by D1. The Court held that a person skilled in the art would not derive this method from the prior art without applying inventive ingenuity. On this basis, the Court concluded that the invention satisfied the requirements of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j).

With respect to the objection under Section 3(k), the Court reiterated that computer-related inventions are not automatically excluded from patentability. A computer-implemented invention that provides a technical contribution or produces a technical effect may still be patent-eligible, even if it employs algorithms or software-based processes. The Court found that Ab Initio’s invention enhanced the efficiency and responsiveness of metadata querying, thereby demonstrating clear technical character. Accordingly, the invention was not barred under Section 3(k).

The Court reaffirmed the principle, established in Lava International and Raytheon, that computer-related inventions demonstrating a technical contribution or technical effect are not automatically excluded.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the refusal order issued by the Controller and directed that Ab Initio’s patent application proceed to grant based on the last submitted claims. No order was made as to costs.

---

MADRAS HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE SECTION 3(K) REJECTION IN PATENT CASE ON DATABASE RECORD MATCHING SYSTEM

Sections: 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3(k), 10(4), and 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended)

Case: Sr No.87/2020/Pt/Chn vs The Controller General Of Patents on 5 November, 2025

The appeal concerned the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 4268/CHE/2012 titled “System and Method for Matching of Database Records Based on Similarities to Search Queries.” The invention claimed priority from a U.S. provisional filing dated 14 October 2011.

The First Examination Report (FER) raised objections on: Section 3(k) – computer programme per se / algorithm; Section 2(1)(ja) – lack of inventive step; Section 10(4) – insufficiency of disclosure; and Section 10(5) – lack of clarity. After amendments and submissions, the Controller refused the application solely under Section 3(k), holding that the claimed invention was a computer programme per se lacking structural features.

Appellant’s Contentions

• The invention provides a technically improved system for retrieving accurate consumer data in contexts where records are unstructured, inconsistent, or incomplete.
• The impugned order is internally inconsistent, while it acknowledges the invention is not a mathematical method or computer programme per se, it still treats it as an algorithm.
• Patent eligibility cannot be denied merely because algorithms or software are involved; what matters is technical effect/technical contribution.
• Relied on:
  • Lava International Ltd. v. Ericsson (2024 DHC 2698)
  • EPO Guidelines (March 2024) (database management and query optimization as technical processes)
  • Raytheon Co. v. Controller (2023 DHC 6673) – absence of novel hardware is not determinative
• The claims involve technical steps: normalization, refined matching, merging similar records, optimized retrieval—all executed through computing devices.
• Patent grants in the US and Australia support patentability.

Respondent’s Contentions

• The invention is nothing more than an algorithm/computer program implemented on generic hardware, as indicated in the specification.
• Cited extensive UK and EPO precedents to argue lack of technical character, including:
  • Aerotel / Macrossan (2006)
  • Symbian (2008)
  • AT&T v. Comptroller (2009)
  • HTC v. Apple (2013)
  • EPO decisions including Comvik (T 641/00), Comptel (T 1784/06), Multex (T 309/10) (data archival/retrieval not technical), Accenture (T 1924/17), Microsoft (T 697/17).

Court’s Analysis

Interpretation of Section 3(k): The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Ab Initio Technology (04.11.2025), reaffirming that an invention escapes the Section 3(k) bar when features provide a technical contribution that augments the functioning of a computer or device.

Assessment of the Claimed Invention

• The invention is not a monopoly over an algorithm but over a technical method involving:
  • normalization of search queries and records
  • screening and discarding irrelevant data
  • calculating matching strength metrics
  • merging similar results
  • returning refined results via a processor and matching engine
• These steps constitute more than linguistic or semantic processing and differ from the librarian-type retrieval criticized in T 309/10 (Multex).
• The method requires technical means: processors, search engines, matching engines, data transformations.
• The Controller himself acknowledged that the invention met Section 2(1)(j) (invention), but rejected it solely under Section 3(k).

Finding

The Court held that the invention does not fall within:

• “computer programme per se” or
• “algorithm” under Section 3(k).

The technical considerations and computer-implemented processes confer a technical effect sufficient to clear the Section 3(k) hurdle.

However, Issues with Claim Breadth

• The claims were overly broad, not limited to any specific normalization or matching method.
• The specification did not clearly identify the particular techniques underlying the claimed steps.
• Granting the claims as drafted could improperly monopolize any method of normalizing/matching database records.

Conclusion

• The Court set aside the rejection under Section 3(k).
• The matter was remanded for reconsideration only on:
  • the scope of the claims, and
  • the enablement (sufficiency of disclosure).
• Applicant is permitted to amend the claims/specification for these limited purposes.

The Controller must pass a fresh, reasoned (speaking) order within 3 months.

---

DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN PATENT SUIT CONCERNING ‘DYNA’ AGROCHEMICAL PRODUCT

Section: 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended)

Case: GSP Crop Science v. Mikado Crop Science, 15 Nov 2025

GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff), a manufacturer of agrochemicals and formulations, instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs for infringement of Indian Patent No. 394568 (IN ‘568). The patent covers suspo-emulsion formulations containing Pyriproxyfen (1–15%) and Diafenthiuron (25–55%). The plaintiff sought to restrain Mikado Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. (defendant) from manufacturing or selling the allegedly infringing product “DYNA”, asserting its exclusive statutory rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.

Defendant’s Stand

In its written statement, the defendant denied manufacturing or selling any infringing product. Without admitting infringement, the defendant undertook:

• Not to infringe IN 568 during its subsistence, including by making, selling, offering for sale, using, distributing, or importing any infringing formulation.
• To notify the plaintiff within 48 hours of any third-party request to supply a product falling within the claims.
• To seek a licence from the plaintiff if it ever intends to manufacture or commercialise any suspo-emulsion formulation protected by IN 568.

During the hearing, counsel for the defendant expressly did not oppose the grant of a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clause 104(a).

Plaintiff’s Position

The plaintiff accepted that a partial decree confined to the permanent injunction could be passed immediately. However, it disputed the defendant’s “zero-sales” position, pointing to:

• Material seized by the Local Commissioner, including packaging and samples of “DYNA” found at the defendant’s premises.
• Listings of the infringing product on the defendant’s own website.
• Listings on the third-party e-commerce platform AgriBegri, raising doubts about the defendant’s assertion that no commercial sales occurred.

Court’s Analysis

1. Permanent Injunction (Consented Relief)
   • Given the defendant’s unconditional concession and non-contest, the Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer 104(a), restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting or otherwise dealing in any product infringing IN 568, including “DYNA”.
2. Disputed Question of Commercial Sales
   • Despite consenting to the injunction, the defendant maintained that it had not undertaken any commercial sales, and undertook to file a zero-sales affidavit pursuant to earlier orders.
   • The plaintiff countered with evidence of packaging, samples, and online listings suggesting commercial presence.
3. Listings on E-Commerce Platform
   • The Court noted, prima facie, that “DYNA” had indeed been listed on the AgriBegri website, as shown by screenshots dated 15.11.2025.
   • To clarify the factual dispute, the Court issued notice to AgriBegri, directing it to:
     • Explain the circumstances under which “DYNA” appeared on its platform, and
     • Furnish details of all sales and existing stock, if any.
4. Further Directions
   • Plaintiff to provide AgriBegri’s details to the Registry within one week for service of notice.
   • Plaintiff to place on record the screenshots/documents handed over during the hearing.
   • Matter listed for further hearing on 24 December 2025.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court:

• Granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, pursuant to the defendant’s express consent.
• Directed issuance of notice to AgriBegri to ascertain whether infringing products were listed or sold through its platform.
• Kept open the issues relating to alleged commercial sales, directing further inquiry supported by affidavits and documentary evidence.

Fixed the next hearing for 24.12.2025 and directed compliance with procedural steps.

---