Section 62 of the Patents Act, 1970
Rights of patentees of lapsed patents which have been restored
Section 62 limits a restored patent: no suit for acts done during the lapse, and protection for good faith users.
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.
Treat this page as a guide. The provision as officially published, along with the Gazette notifications that apply to it, remains the governing text and overrides any simplification here.
What this section says, in plain language
Restoration brings a patent back, but it cannot pretend the lapse never happened. During the period when the patent was not in force, the invention was in the public domain and anyone was free to use it. Section 62 balances the patentee's recovered rights against the position of people who acted on that freedom.
The first protection is a bar on suing for the gap. Where a patent is restored, no suit or other proceeding may be brought for infringement committed between the date on which the patent ceased to have effect and the date of publication of the application for restoration. So the patentee recovers the patent going forward, but has no claim for what happened while it was dead and while the world had no notice that restoration was being sought.
The second protection is for people who committed themselves. Where, during that same period, a person began to work the invention, or made serious and effective preparations to do so, the restoration order must contain provisions for the protection or compensation of that person and of others who used the invention in consequence. In practice this can mean the order allows that person to continue what they were already doing, on the footing that they acted in good faith before the restoration application was published.
The precise shape of the protection depends on the order the Controller makes, and the Rules govern what such orders may provide. What is consistent is the principle: a business that reasonably relied on a public lapse should not be destroyed by a restoration it had no way of predicting. Equally, the protection is tied to what was actually begun or prepared for; it is not a general licence to expand into new products under the restored patent.
For patentees the lesson is that restoration recovers less than a clean patent. For competitors the lesson is to document dates. Purchase orders, tooling invoices, regulatory filings and internal approvals dated during the lapse period are the evidence that establishes good faith working or definite preparations, and they are hard to reconstruct later.
Why this section matters
Restored patentees, competitors and manufacturers who entered the market during the lapse, and their customers and distributors.
At the moment a restoration order is made, and whenever a restored patent is enforced or valued.
A statutory bar on claims for the lapse period, and a protected position for good faith users who began working the invention before publication of the restoration application.
A restored patentee may sue on acts that cannot be actionable, and a competitor may lose protection by failing to prove what it did and when.
How it works in practice
The distributor who moved during the gap
A Rajkot pump maker holds an Indian patent on a self-priming impeller that ceases to have effect in March when a renewal fee is missed. Seeing the lapse recorded in the register, a Coimbatore workshop spends the following months tooling up, obtains its own castings, and starts supplying the same impeller design to a distributor in October. In December the original patentee applies for restoration, and the application is published in February the following year. The patent is restored in June. Under Section 62 the patentee cannot sue the workshop or the distributor for anything done between March and the February publication date. Beyond that, because the workshop began to work the invention in good faith during the gap and can prove it with dated tooling invoices and purchase orders, the restoration order provides for its protection so it can continue that activity. The workshop cannot, however, treat this as a free hand to launch a new range under the restored patent.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- No infringement proceedings lie for acts between the date the patent ceased and the date of publication of the restoration application.
- Persons who began working the invention in good faith during that period receive protection in the restoration order.
- Serious and effective preparations to work the invention can also attract protection.
- The protection follows what was actually begun or prepared for; it is not a general licence.
- Dated commercial records are the practical proof of good faith working during the lapse period.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming a restored patent is enforceable as if it had never lapsed. The gap period is expressly excluded from infringement claims.
- Believing protection runs to the date of restoration. The bar on suits runs to the date the restoration application was published, not the date of the order.
- Relying on memory rather than documents to prove what was started during the lapse.
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
- No infringement suit lies for acts committed between the date the patent ceased to have effect and the date of publication of the restoration application.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Fees are prescribed in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. Because the Schedule is revised from time to time, and charges different amounts to different categories of applicant and for physical as against electronic filing, this page describes the fee without stating a figure. 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 62
Can a restored patent be enforced for the period it was lapsed?
No. Section 62 bars any suit or other proceeding for infringement committed between the date the patent ceased to have effect and the date on which the application for restoration was published. During that time the invention was effectively open to the public and there was no notice that the patent might return. Once the restoration application is published, the position changes, and from restoration onwards the patent is enforceable in the normal way subject to any protections in the order.
I started making a product while the patent was lapsed. Am I protected?
You may be. Where a person began to work the invention, or made serious and effective preparations to do so, during the period between cesser and publication of the restoration application, the order for restoration must contain provisions protecting or compensating that person. The protection relates to what was actually started or prepared for. Evidence matters: dated purchase orders, tooling and machinery invoices, supplier contracts, regulatory filings and internal approvals are the usual proof of good faith activity in that window.
Does the protection under Section 62 last forever?
The protection is defined by the restoration order rather than by a fixed period, and it is tied to the activity the person had already begun or prepared for. It is best understood as a continuing right to carry on that specific activity, not as an unlimited licence under the patent. Anyone in that position should read the restoration order carefully, and should take advice before extending the protected activity into new products, new scale or new markets.
Affected by a patent that came back to life?
MYCrave Consultancy advises restored patentees and good faith users on what a restoration order actually permits.
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.