A Strong Message on Proof of Right, Inventor Death, and Corporate Patents
The Delhi High Court has delivered a decisive ruling that reshapes how India’s Patent Office must treat corporate patent filings when an inventor dies.
The judgement restores balance between procedural law and commercial reality.
It also sends a clear warning against rigid and misplaced interpretations of the Patents Act.
In a case involving a Japanese steel major, the Court quashed a Patent Office order that had refused a patent application for high-strength steel technology.
The refusal rested on a narrow reading of “proof of right.”
The High Court rejected that approach outright.
The Dispute at a Glance
The case arose from a patent application filed by a Japanese company for an invention titled high-strength steel sheet and its manufacturing method.
The technology targets advanced industrial use.
It promises stronger, lighter, and more durable steel.
The application named four inventors.
All were employees of the company.
One inventor passed away during the pendency of the application.
That single fact triggered a chain of legal errors.
The Indian Patent Office refused the application.
It claimed the company failed to prove its right to apply for the patent.
According to the Controller, the company needed an assignment deed from the deceased inventor or his legal heirs.
The company challenged the refusal before the Delhi High Court.
Patent Office View: Procedure Over Substance
The Patent Office took a strict position.
It held that:
- The death of one inventor broke the chain of title.
- An employment agreement was not enough to establish ownership.
- A formal assignment was mandatory.
- Without it, the company lacked legal standing.
The Controller relied heavily on Section 68 of the Patents Act, which governs assignments.
The Office treated the application as legally defective.
This approach placed form above function.
It ignored how corporate innovation actually works.
High Court Pushback: Law Must Serve Logic
The Delhi High Court firmly disagreed.
The Court ruled that the Patent Office misread the law and misapplied statutory provisions.
It quashed the refusal order in full.
The judgment draws a sharp line between:
- The right to apply for a patent, and
- The assignment of a granted patent.
The Patent Office, the Court said, wrongly merged the two.
Employment Contracts Matter
At the heart of the ruling lies one critical finding.
The Court held that an employment agreement can constitute valid proof of right under Indian patent law.
The inventor had signed the agreement during his lifetime.
That agreement clearly vested intellectual property rights in the employer.
The inventor’s later death did not undo that transfer.
The Court emphasized that:
- The right to apply arises at the filing stage.
- Section 7 of the Patents Act governs this stage.
- Section 68 applies only after a patent is granted.
By invoking Section 68 prematurely, the Patent Office committed a legal error.
Inventor Death Is Not a Legal Dead End
The ruling delivers clarity on a sensitive issue.
Inventor death does not automatically invalidate a patent application.
Nor does it force companies into impossible compliance.
The Court noted that:
- The invention was created during employment.
- Rights already vested in the company.
- No fresh assignment was legally required.
Requiring legal heirs to execute assignments would create uncertainty.
It would also disrupt global innovation chains.
The Court refused to allow such instability.
Comparative View: India vs Global Practice
The judgment aligns Indian patent law with global norms.
In major innovation jurisdictions:
- Employment agreements routinely govern IP ownership.
- Corporate applicants rely on internal policies.
- Inventor death does not derail filings.
The Delhi High Court recognized this reality.
It implicitly acknowledged that multinational companies cannot chase posthumous paperwork across borders.
Patent systems must support innovation, not sabotage it.
Procedural Law Is a Tool, Not a Weapon
The Court delivered another powerful message.
Procedural law must advance justice.
It must not obstruct it.
The judgment criticized mechanical decision-making.
It warned against turning technical rules into roadblocks.
Patent examiners, the Court said, must adopt a pragmatic and legally sound approach.
This observation carries wide implications.
What the Court Ordered
The High Court:
- Set aside the Patent Office refusal.
- Restored the application.
- Directed a fresh examination on merits.
- Barred reliance on the flawed proof-of-right objection.
The ruling does not grant the patent outright.
It restores due process.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision has industry-wide impact.
For Corporates
- Employment contracts gain legal weight.
- Filing risks reduce.
- Cross-border patent strategy becomes safer.
For Patent Professionals
- Proof-of-right standards gain clarity.
- Section 7 and Section 68 are clearly separated.
- Examiner discretion faces judicial limits.
For the Patent Office
- The ruling sets a binding precedent.
- Over-technical refusals face greater scrutiny.
- Legal accuracy becomes non-negotiable.
A Win for Innovation, Not Just One Company
This case is not just about steel.
It is about how India treats innovation.
It is about predictability.
It is about fairness.
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that India’s patent system must support genuine inventors and rightful applicants.
It must not collapse under procedural rigidity.
Conclusion: A Course Correction for Indian Patent Law
The ruling marks a turning point.
It restores confidence in India’s intellectual property regime.
It reassures global innovators.
It strengthens the rule of law.
Most importantly, it confirms one truth:
Innovation does not die with an inventor.
When rights are lawfully vested, the law must respect them.
