Rule 60 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Further evidence to be left with the leave of the Controller
Rule 60 bars either side from adding evidence to an opposition after the fixed rounds, unless the Controller grants leave on his own terms.
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 rule requires, step by step
Indian post-grant opposition runs on a closed sequence of evidence. The opponent files a written statement and evidence with the notice, the patentee replies within two months, and the opponent may answer that reply within one month. Rule 60 draws the line at that point. Neither party may deliver any further evidence except with the leave of the Controller, and the Controller may attach conditions, including conditions about costs, when granting it.
The purpose is not to keep good material out but to keep the record orderly and the timetable real. The Opposition Board studies the file and reports on each ground, and the Controller decides after a hearing. If evidence could arrive at any time, the Board's work would constantly be overtaken and hearings would be adjourned again and again. A closed record protects both sides equally, because neither can ambush the other at the last moment.
Leave is discretionary, and the way an application is framed matters. A party asking for leave should explain what the evidence is, why it is relevant to a ground already on the record, when it came to hand and why it could not reasonably have been filed at the proper stage. Evidence that has genuinely just surfaced, such as a rare publication located after a wider search, or material needed to answer something unexpected in the other side's affidavits, is far easier to justify than evidence that was always available and simply overlooked.
The Controller may also permit or direct evidence in the interests of a fair decision, and may allow a document to be produced at the hearing stage, but a party should never plan on that. The practical rule for anyone conducting an opposition in India is to treat the first filing as the whole case. Search thoroughly before filing, obtain the affidavits in advance, and keep only genuinely responsive material for the reply round.
Why this rule matters
Both parties to a post-grant opposition, and anyone advising on opposition strategy.
After the fixed rounds of evidence have closed and before the Controller decides the opposition.
A discretionary power in the Controller to admit further evidence, and a bar on filing it as of right.
A party that files late without leave may have the material rejected, may be ordered to pay costs, and may lose a point it could have won.
How it works in practice
A late-found publication and an honest application
Tezpur Agri Innovations is opposing a granted patent on a tea leaf sorting method. Its evidence rounds are complete when a researcher at a Guwahati institute mentions a Japanese language technical bulletin from a decade earlier that describes the same sorting logic. The bulletin is not indexed in the databases the company searched. Its agent does not simply file it. Instead, the agent applies to the Controller for leave under Rule 60, setting out the date the bulletin was located, how it was found, why the earlier searches did not reveal it, and why it goes directly to the obviousness ground already pleaded. An attested English translation is prepared and a copy is offered to the patentee, with an offer that the patentee be allowed time to respond. The Controller grants leave, allows the patentee four weeks to file responsive evidence, and directs Tezpur Agri to bear the costs occasioned by the delay. The material reaches the record cleanly and the hearing proceeds on a complete file.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- After the fixed evidence rounds, no further evidence may be filed as of right.
- The Controller may grant leave and may impose terms, including as to costs.
- An application for leave should explain what the evidence is, why it matters and why it is late.
- Recently discovered material and genuinely responsive material are the strongest cases for leave.
- Expect the other side to be given a chance to answer anything newly admitted.
- Plan the opposition on the basis that the first filing is the whole case.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Filing extra affidavits without asking, and assuming the office will simply take them on record.
- Seeking leave without explaining the delay. The reason for lateness is usually the deciding factor.
- Using a leave application to smuggle in a new ground of opposition that was never pleaded.
- Ignoring the costs risk. Leave is often granted on terms, and those terms can be expensive.
- Leaving foreign language documents untranslated, which slows the application and irritates the tribunal.
Connected provisions
The Patents Rules supply procedure and the Patents Act supplies power. This page covers the procedure, and the sections that give the Controller or the applicant the underlying right or duty are grouped separately so you can move between the two.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- No fixed period applies to an application for leave, but it should be made as soon as the need arises and before the hearing.
- Evidence outside the fixed rounds cannot be filed at all without the Controller's leave.
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
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 Rule 60
Can I file new prior art after the evidence stages are over?
Only with the Controller's leave. Apply in writing, identify the document, explain how it supports a ground already pleaded, state when and how you found it, and say why it could not have been filed earlier. Offer a copy to the other side and, where the document is not in English, an attested translation. The Controller may grant leave on terms, such as giving the other party time to respond and ordering you to pay the costs caused by the delay.
Why does the Controller restrict further evidence at all?
Because opposition is meant to reach a decision on a settled record within a reasonable time. The Opposition Board reports on the material before it, and the hearing is fixed on that basis. If either side could add evidence whenever it liked, the Board's recommendation would keep becoming outdated, hearings would be adjourned, and a well-resourced party could wear down a smaller one. The restriction applies equally to the patentee and to the opponent.
Does the same restriction apply to the patentee?
Yes. Rule 60 is symmetrical. A patentee who wants to file additional test data, a further expert affidavit or new documents after its reply evidence must also seek leave, with the same explanation of relevance and delay. Patentees sometimes want to add comparative results after seeing the Opposition Board's recommendation, and that will require leave too. The safest approach for both sides is to complete the technical work before the scheduled filing, not after.
Found key prior art after the deadline?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares leave applications and opposition evidence that the Controller can accept.
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.