Section 117E of the Patents Act, 1970
Appearance of Controller in legal proceedings
Section 117E lets the Controller appear in court patent proceedings, or instead file a signed statement explaining the office record and practice.
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.
The authority is the enacted text, not this page. Where our wording and the official provision, or an applicable Gazette notification, do not match, the official material prevails.
What this section says, in plain language
When a patent dispute reaches a court, the judge often needs to know what happened inside the Patent Office: what objections were raised, what the applicant said in reply, why the Controller decided as he did, and how the office normally handles that kind of question. Section 117E is the provision that lets the Controller supply this. In legal proceedings where a decision of the Patent Office or an entry in the Register is in question, the Controller has a right to appear and be heard, and must appear if the court directs him to.
The section also offers a lighter option. Instead of attending the hearing, the Controller may send the court a statement in writing, signed by him, setting out the particulars of the proceedings before him, the grounds of the decision that is under challenge, the practice of the Patent Office in similar cases, and other matters relevant to the issues that he knows about. That statement is treated as part of the evidence in the case. This saves public time and money in routine appeals while still putting the office's own account before the judge.
The reason for this design is that the Controller is not an ordinary litigant. In an appeal against a refusal there is often no opposing private party at all, only the applicant and the office. The Controller's role is to assist the court on the record and on office practice, not to defend a decision at any cost. Where there is a private opponent, for example in a post-grant opposition appeal, that opponent runs the contest and the Controller's participation is usually limited.
Since the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the proceedings this section speaks about are proceedings in the High Court. It applies to appeals under Section 117A, to revocation petitions under Section 64 and to rectification applications under Section 71. For a party, the practical message is simple: what you wrote to the Patent Office can come back before the judge in the Controller's own words, so the file history matters.
Why this section matters
Applicants and patentees in High Court appeals, revocation and rectification matters, and opponents who take part in them.
Once a Patent Office decision or a Register entry is challenged in court.
A right for the Controller to be heard, a duty to appear when directed, and a route to place office practice on the record as evidence.
You may be surprised by an official statement that contradicts your version of the prosecution history, with no time to answer it.
How it works in practice
The office speaks through a written statement
Ananya Rao appeals to the High Court against the refusal of her application for a water-saving drip valve. She argues that the Controller refused the application without dealing with the experimental data she filed after the hearing. Nobody opposes her appeal, so the court has only her version of what happened. Rather than send an officer to attend hearings across several months, the Controller files a signed statement under Section 117E. It sets out the dates of the examination report, the hearing notice, the written submissions and the data, explains the ground on which the application was refused, and describes how the office normally treats post-hearing evidence. The statement becomes part of the evidence. It confirms that the data was received but was not considered, and the court sends the matter back for a fresh decision. Ananya wins the appeal partly because the office's own record supported the very gap she had complained about.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The Controller can appear in court proceedings where a Patent Office decision or a Register entry is questioned.
- The court can direct the Controller to appear.
- Instead of appearing, the Controller may file a signed written statement, which counts as evidence.
- The statement can cover the history of the office proceedings, the grounds of the decision and general office practice.
- The Controller's role is to assist the court, not to act as a rival litigant.
- Everything you file during prosecution can end up quoted before a judge, so keep the record accurate.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Thinking the Controller must attend every hearing. A written statement is a permitted and common alternative unless the court directs otherwise.
- Treating the Controller as the opposing party in an appeal. The office assists the court on record and practice; a private opponent, if any, argues the merits against you.
- Assuming the Controller's written statement cannot be answered. It is evidence in the case, and a party can address it in submissions before the court decides.
Connected provisions
Sections and rules are different kinds of law. A section is enacted by Parliament, while a rule is made by the Central Government using powers the Act grants. Keeping them apart shows which text you are reading and which of the two is more likely to have been revised recently.
Forms, deadlines and fees
We do not publish fee amounts. The First Schedule sets them, and they differ by category of applicant, such as a natural person, a startup, a small entity or another applicant, and by the mode of filing. Check the Schedule currently in force before you calculate anything. How Indian patent fees work.
Amendment history
What changed in this provision, newest first. Read the footnotes in the official consolidated text for the full record.
- 2021The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021References to the Appellate Board were replaced with the High Court.
- 2002The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002The section was inserted as part of the appellate scheme then created, dealing with the Controller's appearance in proceedings.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
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 117E
Does the Controller defend every appeal filed against his order?
No. In many appeals the Controller does not contest the outcome at all. His function under Section 117E is to help the court understand what happened in the office and how the office normally deals with such questions. That is often done through a signed written statement rather than by appearing at hearings. If the court wants oral assistance on a point of practice or on the record, it can direct the Controller to appear, and he must then do so.
Is the Controller's written statement treated as evidence?
Yes. The statement forms part of the evidence in the proceeding, which is why it is signed by the Controller and confined to matters within official knowledge, such as dates, documents, the grounds of the decision and the practice of the office. It is not a substitute for arguments by the parties, and it does not decide the case. A party who believes the statement is incomplete or inaccurate should say so clearly in its submissions and point the court to the parts of the file that support its version.
Does this section apply to infringement suits between two companies?
It is aimed at proceedings where a decision of the Patent Office or an entry in the Register is in question, such as appeals, revocation petitions and rectification applications. A plain infringement suit between two private parties is fought between them, and the Controller has no role in proving infringement or damages. If, however, that suit includes a counter-claim for revocation or throws up a question about the Register, the court may want the office record, and Section 117E provides the route for supplying it.
Worried what your patent file history will show?
MYCrave Consultancy reviews your prosecution record before you go to court, so there are no surprises.
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.