In the case of Controller of Patents & Ors. V. S.P. Chockalingam, the validity of the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 was challenged. It was claimed that after 2005, an Advocate cannot become a Patent Agent by right; however, an Advocate who has obtained a degree in Science, Engineering, or Technology may register as a Patent Agent if he passes the qualifying examination prescribed for that purpose. The amendment provided that the Advocates who had registered themselves as Patent Agents before the amendment will continue to be Patent Agents, however, post-amendment they needed to fulfil the two conditions mentioned above. The constitutionality of the impugned Amendment was challenged stating that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 30 of the Advocates Act. The High Court of Madras relied on the judgement of Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen and noted that few statutes restrict the appearance of Advocates before Specialised or Specific Tribunals and are not violative of the Constitution. The Madras High Court ruled that the limitation imposed by the Act that provides for such qualifications under the Patents Act, actions under which require scientific knowledge, is constitutionally valid and does not violate section 30 of the Advocates Act. The Court distinguished between practising as a patent agent and practising as an advocate, stating that an advocate’s right to practise before the patent office is well-protected under the Patents Act.