Part 6 of the Patent Infringement and Patent Administration Study Series
Quick Answer
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board was a specialised tribunal that heard patent appeals from the Controller and exercised jurisdiction over specified revocation and rectification matters. The IPAB was abolished with effect from 4 April 2021, and its patent jurisdiction was transferred to the High Courts. The Delhi High Court later created an Intellectual Property Division for specialised IP adjudication.
The history of the IPAB remains important for examinations and research. Older judgments, appeals and revocation proceedings were decided within that structure, while the present system places the relevant work before High Courts.
Patent Infringement and Patent Administration: Complete Study Series
- Patent Infringement in India: Meaning, Rights and Tests
- Patent Infringement Doctrines in India
- Remedies for Patent Infringement in India
- Defences in Patent Infringement Cases in India
- Controller of Patents: Powers and Functions in India
- IPAB Abolition in 2021: History and Present Patent Appeal System
What was the Intellectual Property Appellate Board?
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board, or IPAB, was a specialised appellate tribunal for intellectual property matters. It was constituted on 15 September 2003 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Its jurisdiction was later extended to patents through amendments that inserted the former Sections 116–117G into the Patents Act, 1970.
From 2 April 2007, the IPAB became the appellate forum for specified orders of the Controller of Patents and also exercised the patent jurisdiction transferred to it by the statutory scheme.
The relevant historical provisions can be understood alongside the current official India Code text of the Patents Act, 1970, which records the changes made after abolition.
Why was a specialised IP tribunal created?
Patent disputes often combine law with chemistry, biology, engineering or other technical subjects. The IPAB was intended to provide:
- a specialised forum for intellectual property disputes;
- judicial and technical expertise on the same bench;
- faster disposal of time-sensitive patent matters; and
- reduced workload for High Courts.
Speed was particularly important because an Indian patent ordinarily lasts for a limited statutory term. A delayed appeal or revocation proceeding can consume a significant part of the commercial life of the patent.
How was the IPAB composed for patent matters?
The IPAB framework provided for a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and judicial and technical members. Patent benches required technical participation in accordance with the governing provisions.
The intended model combined legal adjudication with scientific or technical understanding. A technical member could assist the bench in engaging with patent claims, prior art, experimental data and the technology involved in the dispute.
What patent jurisdiction did the IPAB exercise?
The IPAB exercised both appellate and specified original jurisdiction.
| Type of jurisdiction | Historical function |
|---|---|
| Appellate | Appeals under former Section 117A from listed decisions, orders or directions of the Controller |
| Revocation | Petitions for revocation under Section 64 within the former statutory structure |
| Rectification | Applications concerning rectification of the Register of Patents |
| Transferred matters | Pending proceedings transferred under the applicable transition provisions |
Appeals could involve refusal or grant-related decisions, amendments, restoration, compulsory licensing and other Controller orders identified by the statute.
Exam Note: The IPAB did not ordinarily try patent infringement suits and award Section 108 remedies. Infringement litigation remained before the courts identified by Section 104.
Why did the IPAB face criticism?
The tribunal's practical functioning did not consistently match its intended design. The main concerns recorded in legal and academic discussion included:
Vacancies and inability to form benches
Patent matters required the necessary bench composition. Long vacancies, especially in technical positions, prevented or delayed hearings and contributed to backlogs.
Infrastructure and case-management limitations
Parties reported limited institutional resources and delays. A specialist forum cannot deliver speed merely because legislation creates it; it also requires members, staff, hearing facilities and reliable procedures.
Institutional independence
Appointments, tenure and executive control over tribunals produced broader constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court repeatedly examined tribunal independence and service conditions in the Madras Bar Association line of cases.
The official Supreme Court judgment dated 14 July 2021 concerned provisions governing tribunal appointments and service conditions. It is relevant to the wider debate about tribunal independence, but it should not be described as a judgment directly approving the abolition of the IPAB.
How was the IPAB abolished?
The Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 removed several appellate bodies, including the IPAB. Parliament later enacted the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
For patent law, the amendments omitted the IPAB framework and redirected the relevant jurisdiction to High Courts. The changes operate from 4 April 2021 under the statutory scheme. The official Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 records the amendments.
The reform was part of a wider rationalisation of tribunals. It reflected concerns that some appellate bodies had not consistently produced faster disposal and that their work could be returned to established courts.
What happened to pending IPAB matters?
Pending proceedings did not simply disappear. The reform legislation provided for transfer of matters to the court before which they would have been filed if the abolished tribunal had not existed, subject to the applicable amended enactment and transfer provisions.
For patent matters, this generally meant transfer to the appropriate High Court. The receiving court could proceed from the stage at which the matter stood, subject to its powers and procedural directions.
The exact forum for a particular historical file depends on the nature of the proceeding, the governing amendment and territorial or statutory jurisdiction. Students should avoid assuming that every former IPAB case necessarily went to the Delhi High Court.
What is the present position for patent appeals?
After abolition, appeals from the Controller that are identified by the current Section 117A framework lie to the High Court. Revocation and rectification matters are also dealt with under the amended High Court structure.
This gives litigants an established constitutional court with ordinary judicial safeguards. It also places technically complex patent work back into a court system that must manage many other categories of litigation.
What is the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division?
The Delhi High Court created an Intellectual Property Division, commonly called the IPD, to handle intellectual property matters following the abolition of IPAB. The official Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 provide a specialised procedural framework.
The IPD handles transferred and newly filed IP matters assigned under the Rules. The framework also permits use of scientific advisers and expert material where technical assistance is required.
The IPD is a division within the High Court, not a revival of the IPAB. Its judges remain High Court judges, and its authority comes from the court's jurisdiction and the amended statutes.
Earlier and present patent appeal structure
| Issue | Earlier position | Present position |
|---|---|---|
| Appeals from listed Controller orders | IPAB under former Section 117A | High Court under the amended framework |
| Patent revocation petitions | IPAB within the former statutory structure | High Court |
| Technical member on adjudicating body | Part of the IPAB bench model | No permanent technical member by default; courts may use scientific advisers or experts |
| Institutional form | Executive-created specialist tribunal | Constitutional court |
| Delhi specialisation | IPAB bench | Delhi High Court IPD under the 2022 Rules |
What were the practical consequences of abolition?
Benefits associated with transfer to High Courts
- stronger institutional independence;
- established judicial infrastructure and procedure;
- development of precedent within constitutional courts; and
- power to integrate patent disputes with related commercial litigation.
Continuing difficulties
- additional work for already busy High Courts;
- no technical member sitting as a regular part of every patent bench;
- uneven specialisation across different High Courts; and
- transition and case-management issues for transferred matters.
The Delhi IPD is one institutional response, but the experience can differ across jurisdictions.
Timeline for examination revision
| Year | Development |
|---|---|
| 2003 | IPAB constituted for trade mark jurisdiction |
| 2007 | Patent appellate and related jurisdiction became operational before IPAB |
| 2021 | IPAB abolished and relevant jurisdiction transferred to High Courts |
| 2022 | Delhi High Court IPD Rules notified |
Key Takeaways
- IPAB was a specialised intellectual property tribunal, not an ordinary civil court.
- It heard listed patent appeals and exercised revocation and rectification jurisdiction under the former scheme.
- Vacancies, infrastructure and independence concerns affected its functioning.
- IPAB was abolished with effect from 4 April 2021 through the tribunal-reform legislation.
- Relevant patent jurisdiction now lies with High Courts under the amended law.
- The Delhi High Court IPD provides specialised procedures but is not a recreated IPAB.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the IPAB still exist?
No. The IPAB was abolished in 2021, and its jurisdiction was redistributed under the amended laws.
Which court now hears appeals from the Controller of Patents?
Appeals from the Controller orders listed in the current statutory framework lie to the appropriate High Court.
Were pending IPAB cases cancelled?
No. Pending proceedings were transferred under the reform legislation to the court that received jurisdiction.
Why is IPAB still studied after abolition?
Its decisions form part of Indian IP jurisprudence, older cases were conducted under its framework, and its history helps explain the present High Court system.
Did IPAB decide patent infringement suits?
Infringement suits were filed before courts under Section 104. IPAB's patent work principally involved appeals, revocation and rectification under the former scheme.
Does every High Court have an IPD?
The Delhi High Court has a dedicated IPD under its 2022 Rules. Institutional arrangements in other High Courts may differ.
Did the Supreme Court approve the abolition in Madras Bar Association (2021)?
That judgment dealt with tribunal appointments and service conditions. It forms part of the wider tribunal-independence debate but should not be presented as a direct ruling approving IPAB's abolition.
Continue Reading
Previous: Controller of Patents: Powers and Functions in India
Return to Part 1: Patent Infringement in India: Meaning, Rights and Tests
Last verified: 27 September 2026. Statutory references and institutional rules were checked against official India Code, Supreme Court and Delhi High Court sources.