Section 117F of the Patents Act, 1970
Costs of Controller in proceedings before Appellate Board
Section 117F dealt with the Controller's costs before the Appellate Board and was removed when that Board was abolished.
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 The number therefore survives as a marker, and readers tracing historical documents still need an explanation of what once stood here.
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
Costs are the money a party spends on a case, and courts often order the losing side to pay part of the winner's costs. Section 117F answered a narrow question about that rule: what happens when one of the participants is the Controller of Patents, a public officer taking part because the Act requires it? The section provided that the Appellate Board would decide whether the Controller should bear his own costs in a proceeding before it, and the Controller could not be ordered to pay the costs of any other party. The idea was that an officer performing a statutory duty should not be exposed to a costs order simply for defending a decision honestly taken.
The provision was omitted by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 with the rest of the Appellate Board scheme. Costs in patent appeals, revocation petitions and rectification applications are now decided by the High Court under its own powers and rules, which include the ability to award actual costs in commercial matters. Courts still take into account that the Controller appears in a statutory capacity, but there is no longer a special statutory shield in the Patents Act. Separately, costs in proceedings before the Controller himself, such as oppositions, are governed by Section 77 and the scale of costs in the Rules.
Why this section matters
Parties budgeting for a patent challenge, and readers of older orders that discuss the tribunal's approach to costs.
When estimating the financial risk of appealing or of defending a challenge.
No current protection. Costs today follow High Court practice and, before the Patent Office, Section 77 and the prescribed scale.
You may under-budget a court challenge by assuming tribunal-era costs practice still applies.
How it works in practice
Budgeting for a challenge under today's rules
Harit Bio Labs Pvt Ltd of Ahmedabad plans to challenge a granted patent that blocks one of its fermentation processes. A director reads an old order in which the tribunal made no order as to costs against the Controller and concludes that a patent challenge carries little costs risk. Its adviser corrects that impression. The tribunal-era rule in Section 117F protected only the Controller, never a private party, and it disappeared with the tribunal in 2021. A revocation petition today is a High Court proceeding, where the court can order the unsuccessful party to pay the other side's costs, and commercial courts increasingly award real costs rather than token amounts. Harit Bio Labs re-plans. It first gets a written opinion on the strength of its prior art, decides which grounds are genuinely strong, and drops two weak grounds. A focused petition is cheaper to run and reduces the risk of an adverse costs order if the challenge fails.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 117F concerned only the Controller's costs in proceedings before the Appellate Board.
- The Controller could not be ordered to pay another party's costs under that scheme.
- It was omitted by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
- Costs in court patent matters are now decided by the High Court; costs before the Controller are governed by Section 77 and the prescribed scale of costs.
Connected provisions
The Patents Act sets the requirement; the Patents Rules, 2003 set the procedure that carries it out. Parliament passes the Act and the Central Government makes the Rules, so the two are separate instruments. We list the connected rules here to take you from the principle to the paperwork.
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.
Related judgments
You will not find case summaries under this heading today. Each one must pass a legal review before it appears, and that work has not been completed for this provision. If you are researching decided cases, use a law report or a court database in the meantime. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 117F
Can a losing party be ordered to pay costs in a patent case today?
Yes. A High Court hearing a patent appeal, revocation petition or infringement suit can make orders about costs, and in commercial matters courts may award costs that reflect what the successful party actually spent on lawyers, experts and court fees. This is one reason to test the strength of a case before filing and to plead only the grounds you can support with evidence. Before the Controller, costs are more modest and follow Section 77 read with the scale of costs prescribed in the Rules.
Why did the law protect the Controller from costs orders?
Because the Controller takes part in these proceedings as a public officer carrying out a statutory function, not as a business pursuing its own commercial interest. If a costs order could follow every time a decision was set aside, officers might hesitate to decide difficult questions, and public funds would be spent on private litigation. That thinking has not vanished with the section. Courts still recognise the statutory role of the office, and orders for costs against the Controller are unusual, but the specific protection once written into this section no longer appears in the Act.
Weighing the cost of a patent challenge?
MYCrave Consultancy assesses the strength of your case first, so you spend on grounds that can win.
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.