Section 71 of the Patents Act, 1970
Rectification of register by High Court
Lets an aggrieved person ask the High Court to correct the register of patents by adding, removing or changing an entry.
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.
Nothing here replaces the statute. The official wording of the provision, together with any Gazette notification that applies to it, governs. This page only explains that material in ordinary language.
What this section says, in plain language
Registers go wrong. An entry may be made without sufficient cause, an entry that was once correct may wrongly remain, a required entry may be missing, or an entry may contain an error or defect. Section 71 is the cure. On an application by a person aggrieved, the High Court may make an order for making, varying or expunging an entry so that the register reflects reality.
The forum has changed over the years and that trips people up. Rectification applications were originally made to the High Court, then moved to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board after 2003, and returned to the High Courts when the Appellate Board was abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Old judgments and older textbooks still refer to the Board, but today the application goes to the High Court.
The Controller has a role too. The Controller may apply to the High Court for the determination of a question relating to rectification. Where an application is made by a private party, notice must be given to the Controller, who is entitled to appear and be heard and must appear if the court so directs. Once the court passes its order, a copy goes to the Controller, who then makes the corresponding change in the register.
Rectification is about the record, not about the invention. It fixes ownership entries, wrong names and addresses, licences that should or should not be shown, and entries obtained by concealment. It is not the route for arguing that a patent should never have been granted; that is revocation under section 64, which is heard by the High Court or raised as a counterclaim in an infringement suit. The two can overlap in practice, so the pleadings need care.
Why this section matters
Anyone whose ownership or interest is wrongly shown or wrongly missing from the register, including true assignees, heirs, co-owners squeezed out of an entry, and parties to failed transactions.
As soon as you discover that the register does not reflect the true position, and before you need to rely on the register in a dispute.
A right in a person aggrieved to approach the High Court, a power in the court to order correction, and a duty on the Controller to give effect to that order.
A wrong entry keeps working against you - the registered person can keep dealing with the patent under section 70, and your own documents may not be accepted as evidence of title.
How it works in practice
An assignment recorded on a forged signature
After the death of a Bhubaneswar inventor, his son produces a document purporting to assign the family's granted patent on a rice parboiling burner to a trading firm, and the assignment is recorded. The inventor's widow, who is the executor under the will, discovers the entry when she tries to licence the patent and finds she is no longer shown as entitled. She files a rectification application in the High Court, saying the entry was made without sufficient cause because the assignment was never executed by the patentee and the son had no authority. Notice goes to the Controller, who appears to explain what was filed and on what proof. The court examines the probate, the disputed signature and the office record, holds that the entry should be expunged, and directs that the widow be entered as the person entitled. A copy of the order goes to the Controller, who corrects the register, and the trading firm's licence negotiations collapse.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The application is made by a person aggrieved, meaning someone whose own interest is affected.
- Grounds include an entry made without sufficient cause, an entry wrongly remaining, an omission, and any error or defect.
- Since the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the forum is the High Court, not the Appellate Board.
- The Controller must receive notice, may appear, and must appear if the court directs.
- The court can order an entry to be made, varied or expunged, and the Controller then rectifies the register.
- Rectification corrects the record; it does not decide whether the invention deserved a patent.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Filing before the Appellate Board or citing its procedure. That body no longer exists and its jurisdiction now sits with the High Courts.
- Using rectification to attack validity. Grounds like lack of novelty belong in a revocation petition under section 64.
- Skipping notice to the Controller. The Act requires it, and an application without it invites an avoidable objection.
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
- The Act sets no fixed limitation period in the section itself, but delay weakens a claim, so move promptly once you learn of the wrong entry.
- Timelines for filing and service follow the rules of the High Court concerned, so check that court's intellectual property rules.
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 replaced with the High Court, so an application to rectify the register is made to the High Court.
- 2002The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002Jurisdiction over rectification was moved from the High Court to the appellate body created by that amendment, taking effect when that body began work on patent matters. Attribution pending reviewer confirmation.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Case law is added slowly and deliberately. A summary is drafted, checked against the reported judgment and then reviewed before publication, because a wrong case note can mislead a reader badly. No summary for this provision has reached publication yet. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 71
Who counts as a person aggrieved?
Someone with a real interest that the entry damages, not merely a curious bystander. A true assignee left off the register, an heir of a deceased patentee, a co-owner whose share is not shown, a mortgagee whose charge was wrongly removed, and a party whose licence was recorded despite being terminated would all normally qualify. The test is practical: does the state of the register affect your legal position or your ability to deal with the patent?
Can the Controller correct a mistake without going to court?
For clerical errors, yes. Section 78 lets the Controller correct clerical errors in a patent, an application, related documents or the register, on a written request with the prescribed fee. That covers misspelt names, wrong addresses and typographical slips. It does not cover contested questions of ownership or an entry someone says was obtained wrongly. Where the correction changes substantive rights or is disputed, the High Court route under section 71 is the right one.
Does rectification affect a pending infringement suit?
It can, because the identity of the proprietor decides who is entitled to sue. Defendants sometimes point to a defective register entry to challenge the plaintiff's standing. Courts manage the overlap case by case, and may hear related matters together. The practical lesson is to fix the register before you start enforcement, not after the defendant raises the point. If the error is purely clerical, the faster route is a correction request to the Controller under section 78 rather than a full rectification petition.
Which High Court do I approach?
The court with territorial jurisdiction over the matter, which usually relates to where the appropriate patent office is situated or where the parties and the cause of action are located. Several High Courts have specialised intellectual property divisions with their own rules and formats. Because getting the forum wrong costs months, this is worth confirming with a practitioner before drafting the petition.
Is the patent register showing the wrong owner?
MYCrave Consultancy assesses rectification grounds, assembles the proof of title and works with counsel to get the register corrected.
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.