Sections 113 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 113 lets the High Court certify that the validity of a claim was contested in revocation proceedings and was upheld; a later suit or revocation proceeding on that claim can then carry full costs for the winner. Section 114 deals with a specification where some claims are valid and others invalid. Section 115 lets a court appoint an independent scientific adviser. If a patent claim of yours is being challenged, our legal dispute resolution team can help you plan the defence of validity.
s.113: if a claim's validity is contested in proceedings before the High Court for revocation under sections 64 and 104 and it is found valid, the High Court may certify that fact; in a later infringement suit or revocation proceeding on that claim the winner gets full costs unless the court directs otherwise. s.114: where one claim is valid and infringed and another is invalid, the court may grant relief on the valid claim, normally only by injunction, unless the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. s.115: the court may appoint an independent scientific adviser on questions of fact or opinion, not of law.
Amendments to know
Section 113(1) was substituted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 with effect from 2 April 2007, and sub-section (3) likewise. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 omitted the words "the Appellate Board or" and "as the case may be" with effect from 4 April 2021, so the certificate is now granted by the High Court alone. Section 112, which restricted the court's power to grant an injunction in certain cases, stands omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 20 May 2003; there is nothing in it to apply today. Sections 114 and 115 carry no amendment footnote. The Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 did not touch these sections.
Section 113: certificate of validity
Sub-section (1): the certificate
"If in any proceedings before a High Court for the revocation of a patent under section 64 and section 104, the validity of any claim of a specification is contested and that claim is found by the High Court to be valid, the High Court may certify that the validity of that claim was contested in those proceedings and was upheld."
The steps are:
- There are proceedings before the High Court for revocation of a patent, under section 64 read with section 104. See our article on section 104 for the counter-claim route.
- The validity of a claim is contested.
- The High Court finds that claim valid.
- The High Court "may" certify that validity was contested and upheld. The word is "may": the certificate is discretionary.
The certificate attaches to a claim, not to the patent as a whole. The printed phrase "section 64 and section 104" is as in the text; the sense is revocation proceedings under section 64 in the way section 104 provides.
Sub-section (2): full costs in later proceedings
Where a certificate has been granted, then in a later suit before a court for infringement of that claim, or a later proceeding for revocation of the patent so far as it relates to that claim, "the patentee or other person relying on the validity of the claim", on obtaining a final order or judgment in his favour, "shall be entitled to an order for the payment of his full costs, charges and expenses" properly incurred so far as they concern that claim, "unless the court trying the suit or proceeding otherwise directs".
The printed text reads "of an incidental to any such suit"; the sense is "of and incidental to". This is a drafting slip in the printed text.
Proviso: costs of this kind shall not be ordered when the party disputing validity "satisfies the court that he was not aware of the grant of the certificate when he raised the dispute and withdrew forthwith such defence when he became aware of such a certificate."
| Item | Position under section 113(2) |
|---|---|
| Who gets the costs | The patentee or other person relying on the claim's validity, who wins a final order or judgment |
| What costs | Full costs, charges and expenses, properly incurred, concerning the certified claim |
| Can the court change it | Yes, "unless the court trying the suit or proceeding otherwise directs" |
| Exception | Disputing party not aware of the certificate and withdrew the defence forthwith on becoming aware |
Sub-section (3): appeals
Nothing in section 113 is to be construed "as authorising the courts hearing appeals from decrees or orders in suits for infringement or petitions for revocation, as the case may be, to pass orders for costs on the scale referred to therein." So the full-costs scale is for the trial court or proceeding, not for the appellate court.
Section 114: relief for a partially valid specification
Sub-section (1): if in proceedings for infringement "any claim of the specification, being a claim in respect of which infringement is alleged, is valid, but that any other claim is invalid", the court may grant relief in respect of any valid claim which is infringed. The proviso says that the court shall not grant relief "except by way of injunction" save in the circumstances in sub-section (2).
Sub-section (2): "Where the plaintiff proves that the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge, the court shall grant relief in respect of any valid claim which is infringed subject to the discretion of the court as to costs and as to the date from which damages or an account of profits should be reckoned". In exercising this discretion the court may take into consideration "the conduct of the parties in inserting such invalid claims in the specification or permitting them to remain there."
So the plaintiff carries the burden of proving good faith and reasonable skill and knowledge. Without that proof, relief on a valid claim is by injunction only. With it, damages or an account of profits are open, with the court's discretion on costs and on the starting date.
Section 115: scientific advisers
Sub-section (1): in any suit for infringement or in any proceeding before a court under the Act, the court may "at any time, and whether or not an application has been made by any party", appoint an independent scientific adviser "to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose."
Sub-section (2): the court fixes the remuneration, which shall "include the costs of making a report and a proper daily fee for any day on which the scientific adviser may be required to attend before the court", and it is "defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament by law for the purpose." So the parties do not pay the adviser under this sub-section.
Illustration (invented)
Lumen Optics Pvt. Ltd. holds a patent with claims 1 to 8 on a lens coating. Vista Glass Pvt. Ltd. files a counter-claim for revocation in an infringement suit before the High Court. The High Court finds claim 3 valid after it was contested, and certifies that fact. Later, Lumen sues Spectrum Coatings Pvt. Ltd. for infringing claim 3 and wins a final judgment. Lumen is entitled to full costs concerning claim 3, unless the court directs otherwise. If Spectrum shows that it did not know of the certificate when it raised the dispute and withdrew the defence at once on learning of it, the costs order of this kind is not made.
In a second suit, claim 5 of the Lumen patent is found invalid but claim 3 is valid and infringed. Lumen proves that claim 5 was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge. The court shall then grant relief on claim 3, subject to its discretion on costs and the date from which damages run.
What the sections do not say
- Section 113 does not say how soon after the finding a certificate must be asked for.
- It does not define "full costs".
- Section 114 does not say how good faith is proved.
- Section 115 does not say how many advisers may be appointed or what qualifications they must have.
Need help defending the validity of a claim?
A certificate of validity can change the costs risk for later challengers, and the way a specification is framed decides what survives. Our legal dispute resolution team can review the claims, the challenge and the evidence and advise on strategy before the High Court.
Key takeaways
- The High Court may certify that a contested claim was upheld; the certificate attaches to the claim.
- A later winner relying on that claim gets full costs unless the court directs otherwise, with a proviso for a challenger who withdrew at once.
- Appellate courts are not authorised by section 113 to pass costs orders on that scale.
- Where a claim is partly valid, relief is by injunction unless the plaintiff proves the invalid claim was framed in good faith and with reasonable skill and knowledge.
- A scientific adviser answers questions of fact or opinion, not interpretation of law, and is paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
Read next
- Section 107A: acts not considered infringement
- Sections 109 to 111: exclusive licensee, section 84 licensee and restriction on damages
- Patent revocation grounds: complete list under section 64
- Sections 117A and 117E: appeals to the High Court and appearance of the Controller
Disclaimer: Based on the Patents Act, 1970 as amended up to the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and time limits under the Patents Rules, 2003 change from time to time and are not covered here. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.