Section 117D of the Patents Act, 1970
Procedure for application for rectification, etc., before Appellate Board
Section 117D set out how revocation and rectification applications were made to the Appellate Board and was removed with that Board.
Official legal text
An omitted provision keeps its slot in the statute. The alternative, renumbering everything that follows, would make older judgments and office records hard to follow. The number therefore survives as a marker, and readers tracing historical documents still need an explanation of what once stood here.
Read this as a plain-language summary. If it and the official text, or a relevant Gazette notification, say different things, the official text and the notification are what count.
What this section says, in plain language
Two of the heaviest patent remedies are revocation of a granted patent and rectification of the Register of Patents. While the Appellate Board existed, Section 117D governed how those applications reached it. The application had to be in the prescribed form, verified, and accompanied by a statement setting out the facts relied on and the relief sought. Copies had to be served on the other side, and the Controller had the right to appear and be heard in any proceeding where the Register or a decision of the Patent Office was in question. The section also allowed the Board to make orders about who should be joined as a party.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Board and this procedural provision was omitted. Revocation is now sought from the High Court under Section 64, or from the Controller in the limited situation covered by Section 85 for non-working after a compulsory licence, while rectification of the Register is sought from the High Court under Section 71. The pleading discipline that Section 117D once imposed has not disappeared: a High Court petition still has to state the grounds precisely, plead the prior art or facts relied on, and be supported by evidence. The Controller's right to be heard now flows from Section 117E.
Why this section matters
Anyone challenging a granted patent or seeking a correction to an entry in the Register of Patents.
At the point of drafting a revocation petition or a rectification application.
No current procedure. Requirements today come from Sections 64 and 71 and the relevant High Court rules.
A petition drafted to an obsolete format risks objections at the registry and weak, unfocused pleadings.
How it works in practice
A rectification request drafted for a forum that closed
Sunder Textiles LLP of Surat discovers that the Register of Patents still shows an earlier proprietor for a patent it bought three years ago, because the assignment was never registered properly. Its consultant drafts an application in the old Appellate Board format, with a verification clause referring to the Board's rules and a prayer addressed to the Chairman. The application cannot be filed anywhere, because the Board and the procedure in Section 117D are both gone. The firm has two routes to consider. If the problem is a clerical error, the Controller can correct it under Section 78. If the entry is wrong or missing in a way that needs a judicial order, the correct step is an application for rectification of the Register to the High Court under Section 71. Either way, the papers must set out the assignment history clearly, attach the executed deed, and explain what entry is sought.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 117D described the form, verification and pleadings for revocation and rectification applications before the Appellate Board.
- It also recognised the Controller's right to be heard in such proceedings.
- It was omitted in 2021 when the Board was abolished.
- Use Section 64 for revocation by the High Court, Section 71 for rectification, and Section 78 for clerical corrections by the Controller.
Connected provisions
Indian patent law works in two layers. The Act carries the substance and the Rules carry the machinery. Because the layers are amended by different processes and at different times, they are presented in separate blocks instead of being merged into one description.
Forms, deadlines and fees
The official fee for anything described on this page is set out in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. It is not the same for every applicant, and it is not the same for online and physical filing, which is why no amount is stated here. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
No judgment summaries appear here yet. Our process requires a legal review of each case note before publication, covering the citation, the court and the point actually decided. Until a note for this provision has passed that check, the section stays empty rather than carrying unverified material. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 117D
Where do I file a revocation petition today?
In the High Court, under Section 64. The petition must identify the specific grounds of revocation relied on, such as lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficiency of the description or wrongful obtaining, and must plead the facts and documents that support each ground. A defendant in an infringement suit can instead raise revocation as a counter-claim in that suit. A separate and narrower route exists before the Controller under Section 85, which deals with revocation for non-working after a compulsory licence has been in force.
Is rectification of the Register the same as revocation?
No. Revocation attacks whether the patent should exist at all, and a successful petition ends the patent. Rectification under Section 71 corrects the Register itself, for example when an entry is missing, wrongly made or wrongly remaining, such as an ownership or licence detail that does not reflect reality. Simple clerical slips can often be fixed more cheaply by asking the Controller to correct them under Section 78. Choose the remedy that matches the problem, because a court will not use rectification as a backdoor way to decide validity.
Need to challenge a patent or fix the Register?
MYCrave Consultancy helps you pick the right remedy and build the evidence a revocation or rectification case needs.
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.