Section 150 of the Patents Act, 1970
Security for costs
Section 150 lets the Controller require a party with no Indian residence or business to give security for costs in office proceedings.
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
Proceedings before the Controller can be expensive for the other side. An opposition, a compulsory licence application, a restoration opposition or an application to rectify a position all take evidence, hearings and professional time. If the losing party is ordered to pay costs and has no presence in India, the order may be worth nothing. Section 150 addresses that risk in advance.
The section allows the Controller to require a party who neither resides nor carries on business in India to give security for the costs of the proceeding. If that party fails to give the security, the Controller may treat the proceeding as abandoned. The power is discretionary, so it is exercised on the facts, usually on an application by the opposite party rather than on the Controller's own motion, and the amount is set with reference to the likely costs.
Note the trigger. It is not nationality but connection with India. A foreign company that carries on business in India through an established presence is not automatically within the section, while an individual living abroad with no Indian business is. The address for service required by Rule 5 does not by itself create residence or business in India; an Indian patent agent's address is an address for correspondence, not a place of business of the client.
The consequence of default is serious. Treating the proceeding as abandoned means the party loses the proceeding it started. For an opponent, the opposition falls away. For an applicant for a compulsory licence, the application ends. That is why a party contemplating an office proceeding from outside India should plan for a possible security order at the beginning, not treat it as a surprise mid-way.
Costs themselves are dealt with elsewhere. Rule 63 provides for determination of costs in opposition proceedings, and Rule 136 sets out the scale of costs the Controller may award. The amounts on that scale are modest compared with High Court litigation, which is one reason security orders in office proceedings are usually proportionate rather than punitive.
Why this section matters
Foreign individuals and companies with no Indian residence or business who bring or defend proceedings before the Controller, and the Indian parties on the other side.
At the start of, or during, any proceeding before the Controller, typically raised by the opposite party once the proceeding is under way.
A discretionary power in the Controller to demand security for costs, and a power to treat the proceeding as abandoned if the security is not furnished.
A party that ignores a security order loses the proceeding by abandonment, regardless of the strength of its case on the merits.
How it works in practice
A foreign opponent asked to secure costs
A granted Indian patent on a solar dryer was owned by Anaikatti Renewables Pvt Ltd in Coimbatore. A firm based abroad, with no office, subsidiary or business in India, filed a post-grant opposition through an Indian agent. The evidence stage stretched over several rounds and required the patentee to commission testing at a laboratory in Pune. The patentee applied to the Controller for security for costs, pointing out that the opponent neither resided nor carried on business in India and that any costs award would have to be enforced abroad. The Controller heard both sides and directed the opponent to furnish security in a fixed sum within a stated period. The opponent, which had assumed the opposition was a low cost way to delay the patent, decided not to furnish the security. The proceeding was treated as abandoned and the opposition ended without any decision on validity. The patent survived, though the underlying prior art remained available to any future challenger.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The Controller can require security for costs from a party who does not reside or carry on business in India.
- Failure to give the required security allows the Controller to treat the proceeding as abandoned.
- The test is connection with India, not nationality or citizenship.
- An Indian address for service under Rule 5 does not by itself mean the party carries on business in India.
- The power is discretionary and is usually invoked by the opposite party.
- Costs in office proceedings are determined under Rule 63 and the scale in Rule 136.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming that appointing an Indian patent agent removes the risk of a security order. The agent's address is for service, not the client's place of business.
- Treating a security order as optional. Non-compliance can end the proceeding entirely.
- Believing that only opponents can be asked for security. The section speaks of a party to a proceeding, so it can apply to whoever is bringing or contesting the matter.
- Budgeting only for professional fees when planning an Indian opposition from abroad, and not for a possible security deposit.
Connected provisions
A section of the Act states what the law requires. The detail of complying with it, including forms, periods and office procedure, sits in the Patents Rules, 2003. The Rules are a separate instrument and change far more often, so they are shown alongside rather than folded into the section.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- Where the Controller orders security for costs, the security must be furnished within the time fixed in that order; failure to do so allows the proceeding to be treated as abandoned.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
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
Case summaries are published only after a qualified reviewer has checked the judgment, the citation and the way the holding is described. Nothing has cleared that review for this provision yet, so nothing is listed here. We would rather show no case note than one that misstates what a court decided. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 150
Who can be asked to give security for costs before the Controller?
A party to a proceeding before the Controller who neither resides in India nor carries on business in India. The section is aimed at the risk that a costs order will be unenforceable because the party has no assets or presence within the country. It applies to proceedings such as oppositions, applications for compulsory licences and other contested matters before the office. The power is discretionary, so the Controller weighs the circumstances, and the opposite party normally has to ask for it.
What happens if the security is not furnished?
The Controller may treat the proceeding as abandoned. That is the end of the matter as far as that party is concerned, whatever the merits. An opponent loses the opposition, and an applicant loses the application. Because the consequence is so complete, a foreign party planning to file an opposition or a compulsory licence application in India should treat a possible security order as a budgeted cost from the outset and respond to any such order within the time fixed.
Does having an Indian patent agent avoid a security order?
No. Rule 5 requires an address for service in India for everyone appearing before the office, and a foreign party will normally give its Indian agent's address. That is an arrangement for correspondence. It does not mean the party resides or carries on business in India, and it does not give the other side anything to enforce a costs order against. If your business genuinely operates in India through a subsidiary, branch or establishment, that is a different matter and is worth putting on record.
How much are costs in proceedings before the Controller?
Costs in office proceedings are determined under Rule 63 by reference to the scale in Rule 136, and they are modest compared with High Court litigation. That has two consequences. First, security orders are generally proportionate rather than punitive. Second, a costs award before the Controller rarely covers a party's actual professional expenditure. The real cost of an opposition is the time and evidence it consumes, which is why parties should assess the strength of their case before filing rather than after.
Planning an Indian opposition from outside India?
MYCrave Consultancy advises foreign parties on security for costs, evidence strategy and the real budget for proceedings before the Controller.
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.