Section 158 of the Patents Act, 1970
Power of High Courts to make rules
Section 158 empowers a High Court to make rules, consistent with the Act, governing procedure for patent proceedings before it.
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.
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
The Patents Act sets out substantive rights and the procedure inside the Patent Office. It says much less about how a patent case should actually run in court. Section 158 fills that gap by allowing a High Court to make rules, consistent with the Act, about the conduct and procedure of all proceedings before it under the Act. The rules must not conflict with the Act, and they must be made in the manner High Court rule making generally requires.
This power has become far more important than it once was. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and moved its work to the High Courts. Appeals from decisions of the Controller under Section 117A, and applications for rectification of the register under Section 71, now go to the High Courts, alongside the infringement and revocation jurisdiction those courts already exercised under Sections 104 and 64. A large and technical caseload landed in the courts at once, and rules of procedure had to keep up.
Several High Courts responded by creating dedicated intellectual property divisions with their own rules covering how patent suits are pleaded and case managed. Typical features include a requirement to file claim construction charts and infringement mapping, provisions for the appointment of technical experts and scientific advisers, confidentiality club arrangements so that commercially sensitive documents can be shown to a limited group of lawyers and experts, timelines for expert evidence, and case management hearings designed to narrow the issues before trial. Section 115 of the Act separately allows a court to appoint a scientific adviser to assist it.
For a litigant, this means the local rules matter as much as the Act. The court where the suit is filed will have its own requirements about the form of pleadings, the documents that must accompany them, the process for confidentiality, and the timetable for expert reports. Getting those wrong at the outset causes delay and can weaken a case that is strong on the merits.
Section 158 should not be confused with Section 159, under which the Central Government makes the Patents Rules that govern practice at the Patent Office, or with Section 160, which requires those rules to be laid before Parliament. Section 158 is about the courtroom; Sections 159 and 160 are about the office.
Why this section matters
Parties to patent litigation in India, their counsel, and businesses planning enforcement or defence strategy in a particular High Court.
From the moment a suit, appeal, revocation petition or rectification application is contemplated in a High Court.
Power in each High Court to make its own procedural rules for patent matters, consistent with the Act.
Pleadings and evidence are filed in a form the court's rules do not accept, causing objections, delay, cost orders and lost momentum in urgent applications.
How it works in practice
A confidentiality club that made disclosure possible
Kestrel Robotics Pvt Ltd sued a Delhi based competitor for infringing its patent on a docking mechanism. The competitor's defence was that its own device worked on a different principle, and proving that required disclosure of its manufacturing drawings and supplier specifications, which it regarded as trade secrets. Under the intellectual property division rules made by the High Court, the parties applied for the constitution of a confidentiality club, so that the sensitive documents could be inspected by a defined group of external counsel and an independent expert rather than by the commercial teams of either side. The court also required both sides to file claim construction charts mapping each element of the asserted claims to the accused device. That single procedural requirement narrowed the dispute from a general argument about the technology to two disputed claim elements. The case became shorter, cheaper and much more predictable, because the court's own rules under Section 158 gave it the tools to manage it.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- A High Court may make rules for the conduct and procedure of proceedings before it under the Patents Act.
- Those rules must be consistent with the Act.
- The provision gained importance after the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 moved appellate and rectification work from the IPAB to the High Courts.
- Several High Courts have created intellectual property divisions with dedicated patent rules.
- Common features include claim construction charts, expert evidence timelines and confidentiality clubs.
- Section 115 separately allows courts to appoint scientific advisers in patent cases.
- Do not confuse it with Section 159, under which the Central Government makes the Patents Rules for the Patent Office.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming patent litigation procedure is the same in every High Court. Rules and case management practice differ.
- Confusing High Court rules under this section with the Patents Rules, 2003, which govern practice before the Controller.
- Overlooking confidentiality club procedures and then either over-disclosing sensitive material or refusing disclosure and losing on the point.
- Preparing pleadings without the claim mapping and technical annexures the court's rules require, which invites objections at the first hearing.
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
This site does not carry a fee table. The First Schedule to the Patents Rules is the source, the rates vary with the applicant's category and with the mode of filing, and a figure quoted second-hand goes out of date quietly. 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 158
Which court hears patent appeals in India now?
The High Courts. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and appeals from decisions of the Controller under Section 117A, along with applications to rectify the register under Section 71, now lie before the High Courts. Those courts already had jurisdiction over infringement suits under Section 104 and revocation counterclaims. Several have set up dedicated intellectual property divisions with their own procedural rules made under the power in Section 158.
What is a confidentiality club in a patent case?
It is a case management arrangement under which commercially sensitive documents are disclosed only to a defined group, typically external counsel and independent experts, rather than to the opposing party's employees. It allows technical evidence such as manufacturing drawings, source code or supplier terms to be tested in court without handing a competitor a commercial advantage. High Court rules for intellectual property matters commonly provide for such clubs, and a party seeking or resisting disclosure should raise the issue early in the proceedings.
How are High Court rules different from the Patents Rules, 2003?
They govern different places. The Patents Rules, 2003 are made by the Central Government under Section 159 and govern practice before the Controller: forms, fees, examination, opposition and register procedure. Rules made by a High Court under Section 158 govern how patent proceedings run in that court: pleadings, case management, expert evidence, confidentiality and hearings. A patent dispute can involve both, for example where an opposition is pending before the Controller while an infringement suit runs in a High Court.
Do I need a technical expert in an Indian patent suit?
Very often, yes, and the court can also appoint one. Section 115 allows a court to appoint an independent scientific adviser to assist it or to inquire and report, and Rule 103 provides for a roll of scientific advisers. High Court rules for intellectual property matters usually set out how party experts file reports and when they are examined. This is a strategic decision on your own case and needs proper advice, but assume that credible technical evidence will be central to how the court decides.
Planning patent litigation in an Indian High Court?
MYCrave Consultancy helps you understand court procedure, evidence requirements and confidentiality options before you file or defend.
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.