Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970
Amendment of specification before High Court
Section 58 allows the High Court, in revocation or infringement proceedings, to let a patentee amend the complete specification.
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
When a patent is under attack in court, the patentee often realises that a claim is wider than the disclosure can support. Section 57 is not available at that stage, because the Controller cannot deal with an amendment while proceedings are pending. Section 58 fills the gap by giving the same power to the court that is hearing the case, so that the dispute can be decided on a specification that reflects what was actually invented.
The power arises in a proceeding before the High Court for revocation of a patent, and in a suit for infringement where the validity of the patent is in question. The court may allow the patentee to amend the complete specification in such manner and subject to such terms as to costs, advertisement or otherwise as the court thinks fit. Terms matter here: a patentee who obtains an amendment mid-case will often bear costs, and may be required to advertise the amendment so that the public is not misled.
The Controller is not sidelined. Notice of any application for amendment under this section must be given to the Controller, who is entitled to appear and be heard, and who must appear if the court directs. This keeps the public interest in the register represented, and ensures that any amendment allowed is workable when it is recorded at the Patent Office.
The substantive limits are the same as before the Controller. An amendment cannot be allowed under Section 58 in a way that conflicts with Section 59, so it must be by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, must not add matter not in substance disclosed, and must not produce a claim falling outside the scope of an existing claim. A court cannot rescue an over-broad patent by rewriting it more widely.
Since the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, revocation petitions and appeals that used to go to the Board are dealt with by the High Courts. References in older commentary to amendment before the Appellate Board should now be read as amendment before the High Court, and several High Courts have set up dedicated intellectual property divisions with their own rules for these matters.
Why this section matters
Patentees defending revocation petitions or infringement suits, defendants and revocation petitioners, and the Controller as custodian of the register.
Once court proceedings involving the validity of the patent are on foot, which is exactly when Section 57 becomes unavailable.
A judicial power to permit amendment of a complete specification during litigation, on terms as to costs and advertisement.
A patentee may lose the whole patent on a defect that a timely amendment could have cured, or seek an amendment so late that the court refuses it as an abuse.
How it works in practice
Amending under fire
Vayu Sensors Pvt Ltd sues a Hyderabad distributor for infringing its patent on a sensor calibration method. The distributor counterclaims for revocation and produces a conference paper published before the priority date that discloses the broad calibration step claimed in claim 1, though not the temperature compensation loop described in Vayu's examples. Vayu cannot go to the Controller, because the revocation counterclaim is pending. It applies to the High Court under Section 58 for leave to amend claim 1 to include the compensation loop, and gives notice to the Controller, who appears through counsel. The court allows the amendment as a disclaimer that stays within the scope of the original claims, but orders Vayu to pay the distributor's costs thrown away and to advertise the amendment. The case then proceeds on the narrower claim. Vayu keeps a patent, but a specification review two years earlier would have been far cheaper.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The High Court may allow amendment of a complete specification in revocation proceedings and in infringement suits where validity is in issue.
- Amendment may be allowed on terms as to costs, advertisement or otherwise.
- Notice must be given to the Controller, who may appear and be heard and must appear if directed.
- The limits in Section 59 apply, so no new matter and no broadening.
- After the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021, these applications are made to the High Court rather than to the former Appellate Board.
- Section 57 cannot be used once such proceedings are pending, which is why Section 58 exists.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming amendment in court is a formality. It is discretionary, and delay or lack of candour can lead to refusal.
- Overlooking the requirement to notify the Controller, which is a condition of the application, not an optional courtesy.
- Hoping to broaden or add matter in court. Section 59 binds the court just as it binds the Controller.
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
- There is no fixed statutory period, but the application should be made as early as possible in the proceedings, because delay affects the court's discretion and the terms imposed.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Where a fee is payable under this provision, the figure comes from the First Schedule. Categories of applicant are charged at different rates, and electronic filing is treated differently from paper filing, so an accurate number can only come from the Schedule in force on the day you file. 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 removed, so an application to amend a specification in revocation proceedings is dealt with by the High Court.
- 2005The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005The section was replaced so that the power to allow an amendment could be exercised by the appellate body then created, as well as by the High Court.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Court decisions shape how this provision is applied, but a summary is useful only if it is right. Every case note on this site is read by a legal reviewer before it goes live, and none has been completed for this provision so far. This section will fill in as those reviews finish. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 58
Can a patent be amended during an infringement case in India?
Yes, but only through the court. Section 58 allows the High Court, in a revocation proceeding or in an infringement suit where validity is in question, to permit the patentee to amend the complete specification. The court can impose terms as to costs, advertisement or otherwise. The Controller must be notified and may appear. What cannot happen is an amendment before the Controller under Section 57 while such proceedings are pending, so the litigation route becomes the only one available.
Why does the Controller get notice of a Section 58 application?
Because the specification is a public document and the register has to reflect what the patent finally covers. The Controller represents the public interest in the accuracy of the register, can point out whether a proposed amendment is workable, and must appear if the court directs. Giving notice is therefore a requirement of the application rather than a courtesy. In practice the Controller's office may or may not take an active position, but the notice must still be given.
Will the court always allow the amendment?
No. The power is discretionary. Courts look at whether the amendment is within the limits set by Section 59, whether the patentee delayed unreasonably after becoming aware of the problem, whether the patentee was candid about the reasons, and whether the amendment is being used to keep an unfair claim alive. Where an amendment is allowed, terms as to costs and advertisement are common. Approaching the court early and explaining the position frankly improves the prospects considerably.
Facing revocation and need to amend your claims?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares Section 58 amendment applications and the supporting evidence courts expect from a patentee under challenge.
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.