India: Proof Of Right For Filing Patent Applications In India

Last Updated: 8 January 2015
Article by Krishna & Saurastri Associates

When an application for a patent is made at the Indian Patent office ("IPO") by virtue of an assignment of the right to apply, the IPO requires the submission of the proof of right. It has been observed that most applicants did not follow the practice of filing the proof of right and generally, no objections were raised by the IPO especially in cases of Convention applications

However, the IPO raised an objection regarding the proof of right in the examination report of Application No.794/CHE/2006 and it was held that the applicant had failed to fulfill the requirements of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 ("the Act") by not obtaining the signatures from the inventors on Form 1 or by not filing the assignment deed from the inventors or any other documents in support of their right to make the application in India. The order was appealed and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in its order of 28th October, 2013 in NTT DoCoMo v Controller of Patents held that the applicant had not submitted the proof of right to make the application for a Patent. A copy of the order can be found here.

The IPAB order seems to be in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, 2011 ("the Manual") which mentions-

"Wherever, the inventor(s) is/are not the applicant, a proof of right to apply by way of an endorsement in the Application form (Form 1) or an assignment deed shall be submitted."

In case, the Applicant has not furnished such proof of right, the Applicant could expect to be informed about it by the IPO, since the Manual mentions "...the Office checks for proof of right to file the application. If the proof of right is not filed along with the application, it shall be filed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the application. Otherwise, the applicant shall file the same along with a petition under Rule 137/138".

Furthermore, in some instances, the applicant may receive an objection regarding the proof of right along with the First examination report (FER) and the same would be required to be submitted within twelve months from the date of receipt of the objection and a petition under rule 137/138 of the Patents Rules, 2003 ("the Rules") would not be acceptable.

The Controller's decision of 7th February, 2013 in the matter of Application No. 6734/DELNP/2006 provides guidance in such situations wherein an assignment was filed along with a petition for condoning the delay for submitting an assignment. The assignment along with the petition was rejected since the same was barred by limitation as is specified in Section 21 of the Act.

It would also be practical to evaluate the options available wherein the Applicants have not submitted the proof of right within six months from the date of filing the application with the IPO, and when the IPO has also not required the applicant to submit the proof of right. The issue of non filing of the proof of right due to omission of inventor's signatures would be considered a procedural irregularity and could be condoned since the same would be within the powers of the Controller under Rule 137 of the Rules.

The Applicant could also be faced with a situation wherein the Form 1 filed with the IPO did not include the signatures of the inventors. However, the Patent was granted by the IPO without any objection regarding the same. In such cases, the Applicant may wish to know whether such a mistake could be rectified after the grant, especially in view of the fact that one of the grounds for revocation of the Patent includes that the Patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled under the provisions of this Act to apply. It seems that such a mistake can be rectified at a later stage. In All India Reporter Ltd. And Anr vs. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar (AIR 1961 Bom 292), the Bombay High Court held that the absence of signature or verification in the plaint can be cured even at the appellate stage of the suit and such correction will take effect from the date on which the original suit was filed. This decision has also been referred to in Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors. (AIR2006SC1194), where the Supreme Court reiterated that the removal of defect in filing the plaint relates back to the date of filing the plaint. The fact that these are established principles as far as the civil matters are concerned and would also be applicable to Patent matters has been addressed by the Delhi High Court in Tianjin Dishili Investment Vs Union Of India (W.P.(C) No.5633/2011), which mentioned that errors of similar nature are merely an irregularity and do not affect the institution of a proceeding. It was mentioned that there was no reason for a more stringent view be taken in the proceedings under the Act especially when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to anyone.

Therefore, the issue regarding the proof of right seems to be a non-compliance of a procedural formality and may lead to disastrous consequences.

The issue of the proof of right can be overcome by submission of an executed Form 1 or by the submission of an assignment. It is expected that a certified copy of the employment agreement stipulating that the rights to the Intellectual Property including the rights to file an application for a Patent are assigned to the employer, may be acceptable as the proof of right. It is also expected that the signed invention disclosure form acknowledging the obligation to assign any rights, title and interest in the invention to the employer could be used as evidence of the assignee's right to prosecute the Patent application. It would be interesting to observe the further developments in law regarding the proof of right.

Jurisdiction of Court in a Composite Suit

In a recent judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Paragon Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Pragathi Rubber Industries, the Hon'ble Court decided the controversy relating to Composite Suit i.e. suit having multiple cause of actions. Though, the present case is decided under the erstwhile Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The judgment is still relevant for enforcement of the IP rights as it discusses about the proper forum for the enforcement of the IP Rights. A copy of the judgment can be found here.


In the year 2001, the Plaintiff i.e. M/s. Paragon Rubber Industries Ltd. who is located in Kottayam filed a suit against the Defendants i.e. M/s. Pragathi Rubber Industries, who are located in Jallandhar, Punjab at District Court, Kottayam, Kerala claiming reliefs under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The Defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The learned District Judge dismissed the application with the observation that issue of jurisdiction will be decided at final stage of the suit. The Defendant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala; vide its order dated June 16, 2004, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the learned judge to decide the issue of the territorial jurisdiction afresh. In view of the directions, the learned District Judge treated the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Defendant challenged the aforesaid Order in the High Court of Kerala. The Hon'ble High Court held that the instant composite suit encompassing the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 would not be maintainable for lack of jurisdiction under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (in spite of jurisdiction under the Copyright Act, 1957), the High Court set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Judge. However, the Plaintiff was given the liberty to amend the plaint. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants appealed against the Order of the High Court of Kerala.


Whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain cause of actions in terms of both the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 when the court only has jurisdiction to entertain one cause of action in terms of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957?"

Plaintiff's Contention:

1. The suit is maintainable in its form before the learned District Judge, Kottayam for the violation of the copyright in view of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

2. High Court has wrongly held that the composite suit claiming reliefs under Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 would not be maintainable.

Defendant's Contentions

1. It is admitted by the Plaintiff that neither the Defendant's goods are available in Kottayam, nor the Defendant resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Kottayam.

2. The present suit shall be governed as per the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and not Trade Marks Act, 1999.


It is observed by the Hon'ble Court that even though the Plaintiff was aware that the District Court Kottayam will have no jurisdiction under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; but tried to camouflage the same by confusing it and mixing it up or intermingling it with the relief contained under the Copyright Act, 1957. From the averments made in the Plaint, it is apparent that the Plaintiff had filed a composite suit and such a suit is not maintainable unless the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of actions and the entire reliefs claimed.


Order II, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contemplates uniting several causes of action in the same suit. The cause of action for infringement of copyright and the cause of action for infringement of trade mark or a cause of action for passing off are different. Even if one cause of action has no nexus with another, indisputably Order II, Rule 3 of the Code will apply. However, the application of Order II, Rule 3 of the Code will not ipso facto confer jurisdiction upon a Court which it otherwise does not enjoy. In other words, Order II, Rule 3 will not confer a Court with jurisdiction under 1958 Act when the Court does not enjoy such a jurisdiction. A composite suit is not maintainable unless the Court enjoys the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of action and the entire relief. Considering Dhodha House Vs. S.K.Maingi (2006) 9 SCC 41 and Dabur India Ltd. vs. K.R. Industries (2008) 10 SCC 595; the Hon'ble Court held as follows "....for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the court in a composite suit, both the causes of action must arise within the jurisdiction of the court which otherwise had the necessary jurisdiction to decide all the issues. However, the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other." The Hon'ble Court further held that while enacting the erstwhile Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Parliament was aware of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Parliament did not choose to provide a similar provision in 1958 Act. Such an omission was a conscious omission and was, therefore, clear and explicit. On the other hand, while enacting the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Parliament provided for an additional forum by enacting Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act. It is a settled position that the Court shall not readily presume the existence of jurisdiction of a court which is not conferred by the statute. The Instant Judgment held that the Plaintiff could not take advantage of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. [Although, the 1999 Act was enacted on 30th December, 1999, the same came into force on September 15, 2003. Since the suit in this case was filed on March 19, 2001, it was adjudicated under the erstwhile Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958].


The judgment reiterates the old principle of law that a composite suit will not entitle a Court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, as the law is well settled that the decree or judgment passed by the court having no jurisdiction to entertain the same shall be nullity. The judgment is relevant even in present scenario as the remedy of passing off under the Trade Marks, 1999 can be availed only after complying with the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, otherwise the composite suit of infringement and passing off cannot be availed by filing the suit under the provision of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.