The Appellant instituted a patent infringement action and applied for a temporary interdict against the Respondent.The Respondent entered an appearance to defend the action, opposed the application and applied for the settingaside of three amendments which had been made to the The court a quo set aside all three amendments and theAppellant appealed against this decision. The matter was settled between the parties and the Respondentwithdrew its opposition.The main question before the Court was whether, upon a proper interpretation of section 51(10) of the PatentsAct 57 of 1978, the Commissioner of Patents could set aside an amendment because of inadequate reasons givenfor making such an amendment. Section 51(1) stipulated that an application forPage 78 of [1998] 3 All SA 77 (A)amendment to a specification had to set out the nature of the proposed amendment and furnish full reasonstherefor. The court a quo held that non­compliance with section 51(1) could be raised in an application under section51(10) and, if the reasons were found wanting, the Commissioner of Patents could set aside the amendment.Held ­ The Court held that the order of the court a quo had not been rendered academic by the settlement of thelitigation between the parties. The order affected the state of the specification and was an order in rem whichwould have a bearing on other litigation still pending.The Court examined previous cases and considered the language and the purpose of the Act. The Court heldthat the adequacy of reasons provided under section 51(1) was for the Registrar of Patents to decide and section51(10) did not create jurisdiction for the Commissioner to review such reasons. If the registrar's acceptance of thereasons was to be attacked, such attack had to be made under common law review within a reasonable time.The appeal was accordingly upheld