Section 117B of the Patents Act, 1970
Procedure and powers of Appellate Board
Section 117B borrowed procedural powers from trade mark law for the patent Appellate Board and was removed with that Board.
Official legal text
The number is still shown because Indian statutes are not renumbered when something is taken out. The provision is simply marked as omitted. Documents created before the change, including granted patents and decided cases, continue to cite it, so the reference has to remain understandable.
Treat this page as a guide. The provision as officially published, along with the Gazette notifications that apply to it, remains the governing text and overrides any simplification here.
What this section says, in plain language
Rather than write a fresh code of procedure for patent appeals, Parliament took a shortcut. Section 117B applied a set of provisions from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to the Appellate Board when it was dealing with patent matters. Through that borrowing, the Board received the working tools a tribunal needs: how vacancies and absences were handled, the composition of benches, freedom from the strict rules of the Civil Procedure Code while still following natural justice, and powers of a civil court such as summoning witnesses, requiring documents and receiving evidence on affidavit. Its orders were executable like decrees, and proceedings before it were treated as judicial proceedings.
This entire framework fell away when the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and Section 117B was omitted. Patent appeals and revocation petitions are now heard by High Courts, which already have their own procedure under the Civil Procedure Code, their original side rules and, where framed, Intellectual Property Division rules. Those rules deal with the same practical questions the borrowed provisions once handled, including evidence, expert witnesses, confidentiality arrangements for commercially sensitive documents and case management timetables.
Why this section matters
Practitioners and students reading pre-2021 patent orders that describe the tribunal's powers over evidence and procedure.
Only when studying how patent disputes were conducted before the tribunal closed.
No current power. Procedural powers in patent matters now come from the High Court's own jurisdiction and rules.
You may prepare a case around tribunal-style procedure that a High Court does not follow, especially on evidence and affidavits.
How it works in practice
Preparing evidence for the right forum
Dr Farhan Qureshi, a professor at a Hyderabad engineering institute, is asked to give expert evidence in a patent revocation matter. A colleague who was involved in a 2015 case tells him the tribunal simply took evidence on affidavit, rarely ordered cross-examination, and was not bound by the Civil Procedure Code, so a short affidavit would do. That description came from the powers borrowed by Section 117B, which no longer exists. The revocation petition today is filed in a High Court, where the petition is tried under that court's rules. Dr Qureshi's affidavit must comply with the court's requirements for expert evidence, disclose the material he relied on, and he must be ready to be cross-examined on it. The team also has to plan for a confidentiality club, because the patentee has filed manufacturing cost data. The change of forum changed how the evidence had to be built, even though the technical arguments about obviousness stayed the same.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 117B gave the Appellate Board its procedure by applying named provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Those borrowed powers included civil court powers over witnesses, documents and evidence on affidavit.
- The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Board and this section was omitted.
- Procedure in patent appeals and revocation cases now follows High Court rules, including Intellectual Property Division rules where they exist.
Connected provisions
You will find the related rules grouped below rather than inside the explanation. The separation is deliberate. The Act and the Rules are distinct legal instruments, and mixing them can lead a reader to attribute a procedural requirement to the statute itself.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Any official fee connected with this provision is fixed by the First Schedule to the Patents Rules, not by the provision itself. The amount depends on who the applicant is and on whether the filing is made online or on paper, so no figures are reproduced here. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
This part of the page is reserved for summaries of decided cases. They are added one at a time, after review by a person qualified to confirm that the summary matches the judgment. Nothing has been cleared for this provision so far, so there is nothing to show. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 117B
What procedure applies to patent appeals now that Section 117B is gone?
The procedure of the High Court where the matter is filed. That means the Civil Procedure Code as applied by that court, its appellate side or original side rules, and any Intellectual Property Division rules it has framed. Those rules cover pleadings, documents, expert evidence, cross-examination, confidentiality clubs for sensitive commercial information, and case management hearings. They are more formal than tribunal practice was, so a party moving from Patent Office proceedings to court should plan its evidence and disclosures early with counsel who practises in that court.
Were the Appellate Board's powers the same as a civil court's?
In substance, for the tasks it needed to perform. Through Section 117B the Board could summon and examine witnesses, require the production of documents, receive evidence on affidavit and review its own decisions, while not being bound by the strict procedure of the Civil Procedure Code. It had to follow the principles of natural justice, which means giving both sides notice and a real chance to be heard. Those safeguards continue in the High Court, which has full civil jurisdiction of its own and does not need a borrowing provision.
Facing a patent dispute in the High Court?
MYCrave Consultancy helps you assemble the technical record and evidence a patent matter needs today.
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.