Section 114 of the Patents Act, 1970
Relief for infringement of partially valid specification
Allows relief for infringement of valid claims even when other claims are invalid, but limits damages and costs to good faith drafting.
Official legal text
The verbatim statutory text of this provision is reproduced from the official source and checked by our legal reviewer before it is published here. Until that check is complete for this page, read the exact wording directly from the official source linked below — it is the only version that governs.
This is a simplified explanation. Where it differs from the official text of the provision, or from an applicable Gazette notification, the official text and the notification prevail.
What this section says, in plain language
Patents rarely stand or fall as a single unit. A specification usually contains several claims of different breadth, and a court may find that some are valid while others are not. Section 114 tells the court what to do in that situation. It may grant relief in respect of any claim that is valid and infringed, even though other claims in the same specification are invalid. The patent is not thrown out simply because one claim was too wide.
There is a condition on money and costs. The court is not to grant relief by way of damages or costs unless the plaintiff proves that the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. This puts the drafting itself in issue. A claim that was drafted honestly, on a reasonable view of the prior art known at the time, will normally satisfy the test. A claim drafted recklessly wide, or maintained after the patentee knew it could not stand, will not.
The court is also given tools to tidy the patent up. It may direct, as a condition of granting relief, that the specification be amended to its satisfaction under Section 58, on an application made for that purpose. That application is decided by the court in the same proceeding rather than being sent to the Controller, which avoids delay and inconsistency.
Timing of damages can be adjusted as well. In exercising its discretion about costs and about the date from which damages should be reckoned, the court may take into account the conduct of the patentee in framing the specification and in amending it. A patentee that promptly disclaimed an unsustainable claim will be treated differently from one that clung to it until judgment.
The lesson for drafting practice is direct. Broad claims are legitimate and often necessary, but they should be supported by the description and by a genuine view of the prior art, and the file should show that thought was given. Keeping the search report, the drafting notes and the reasoning behind claim scope is not merely good discipline; years later it can be the evidence that preserves a damages claim. Section 114 works together with Section 113 on costs and Section 111 on financial restrictions, and all three explain why the quality of the original specification keeps mattering long after grant.
Why this section matters
Patentees whose claim sets face partial invalidity, patent agents and attorneys drafting specifications, and defendants attacking selected claims.
At trial, once the court has ruled on the validity of individual claims.
A power to grant relief on the surviving valid claims, conditioned on proof of good faith and reasonable skill in framing the invalid ones, and a power to require amendment.
A patentee that cannot show its drafting was careful and honest may win on infringement of the valid claims and still recover neither damages nor costs.
How it works in practice
Two claims survive, and the drafting file matters
Kaveri Filtration Pvt Ltd of Salem holds a patent with six claims on a membrane cleaning method. In a suit against a competitor, the High Court finds claims 1 and 2 invalid as obvious over a Japanese publication, but holds claims 3 and 5 valid and infringed. Under Section 114 the court can still grant relief on claims 3 and 5. On damages and costs, Kaveri must prove that claims 1 and 2 were framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. Its patent agent produces the pre-filing search report, contemporaneous notes explaining why the Japanese document was thought to teach away from the claimed approach, and correspondence showing that claim scope was discussed with the inventors. The court accepts that the drafting was honest and competent, and awards damages on the infringement of claims 3 and 5. As a condition of relief it directs Kaveri to apply to amend the specification so that the invalid claims are removed. Had the file been empty, or had Kaveri defended claims 1 and 2 long after it knew they were untenable, the money award could have been refused.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Relief can be granted on valid claims even where other claims in the same patent are invalid.
- Damages and costs depend on proof that the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge.
- The court may require amendment of the specification under Section 58 as a condition of relief.
- The amendment application is dealt with by the court in the same proceeding.
- Conduct in framing and amending the specification affects costs and the date from which damages run.
- Keeping search reports and drafting notes can preserve a damages claim years later.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming one bad claim destroys the whole patent. Valid claims can still be enforced.
- Expecting damages automatically once a valid claim is found infringed. Good faith drafting must be proved.
- Defending obviously untenable claims to the end, which damages the position on costs and on the date damages run from.
- Discarding drafting files and search reports after grant, then having no evidence of good faith when it is needed.
Connected provisions
- ActSection 58Amendment of specification before High Court
- ActSection 57Amendment of application and specification before Controller
- ActSection 59Supplementary provisions as to amendment of application or specification
- ActSection 113Certificate of validity of specification and costs of subsequent suits for infringement thereof
- ActSection 64Revocation of patents
- ActSection 108Reliefs in suits for infringement
This page explains a section of the Patents Act, 1970. The working detail that goes with it lives in the Patents Rules, 2003. The connected rules appear in their own block so that the statutory duty and the procedural steps stay clearly distinguishable when you cite either one.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Where a fee is payable under this provision, the figure comes from the First Schedule. Categories of applicant are charged at different rates, and electronic filing is treated differently from paper filing, so an accurate number can only come from the Schedule in force on the day you file. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
Case law is added slowly and deliberately. A summary is drafted, checked against the reported judgment and then reviewed before publication, because a wrong case note can mislead a reader badly. No summary for this provision has reached publication yet. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 114
If one claim of my patent is invalid, do I lose the whole patent?
No. Section 114 allows the court to grant relief for infringement of any claim that is valid, even though other claims in the same specification are held invalid. Indian practice treats claims separately for validity. What the section does add is a condition on money: you must prove that the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge before damages or costs are granted. The court may also direct you to amend the specification as a condition of relief.
What does good faith and reasonable skill in drafting mean?
It asks whether the claim was drafted honestly and competently in light of what was reasonably known at the time, not whether it turned out to be correct. Evidence that supports it includes a pre-filing prior art search, notes explaining why the claim scope was thought defensible, professional involvement in drafting, and prompt narrowing once new prior art emerged. Evidence against it includes reckless breadth with no support in the description, or continuing to press a claim after knowing it could not survive.
Can the court order me to amend my patent during a suit?
It can make amendment a condition of the relief it grants. Section 114 allows the court to direct that the specification be amended to its satisfaction under Section 58, on an application made for that purpose, and the court decides that application in the same proceeding. This keeps the Register accurate by removing claims that have been found invalid, and it avoids a separate round before the Controller. Prepare a realistic fallback claim set before trial so that you are not drafting under pressure.
Is part of your patent vulnerable to a validity attack?
MYCrave reviews claim sets and drafting records so that valid claims remain enforceable and damages are not lost on a technicality.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.