Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970
Power of Controller to refuse or require amended applications, etc., in certain cases
Empowers the Controller to refuse an application, or to require it or its specification to be amended, where the law's requirements are not met.
Official legal text
The verbatim statutory text of this provision is reproduced from the official source and checked by our legal reviewer before it is published here. Until that check is complete for this page, read the exact wording directly from the official source linked below — it is the only version that governs.
Read this as a plain-language summary. If it and the official text, or a relevant Gazette notification, say different things, the official text and the notification are what count.
What this section says, in plain language
Section 15 is where an examination report can become a decision. If the Controller is satisfied that the application or the specification or any other document filed does not comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules, the Controller may refuse the application, or may require the application, specification or documents to be amended to their satisfaction before proceeding further. It is the statutory basis for almost every refusal order issued by an Indian patent office.
The power is wide in one sense and narrow in another. It is wide because non-compliance with any requirement can trigger it, from subject matter excluded under Section 3, to a lack of novelty or inventive step revealed by the Section 13 search, to insufficiency or unclear claims under Section 10, to a failure to file the statement about foreign applications under Section 8. It is narrow because it is not a free discretion. The Controller must be satisfied of the non-compliance, must give the applicant the opportunity of being heard under Section 14 and Rule 129, and must give reasons.
Refusal is different from the other ways an application ends. An application that is not put in order for grant within the period fixed under Section 21 is deemed to have been abandoned. An application for which no examination request is filed within the prescribed period is treated as withdrawn under Section 11B. A refusal under Section 15, by contrast, is a reasoned decision on the merits, and that difference matters because a reasoned decision can be appealed.
The appeal route changed in 2021. Appeals from decisions of the Controller under Section 15 lie to the High Court under Section 117A. Until the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, such appeals went to that Board. All pending IPAB matters were transferred to the High Courts, and dedicated intellectual property divisions in some High Courts now hear them. Reported decisions from those divisions have set clear expectations for the quality of reasoning in a refusal order, including that objections decided against an applicant should have been put to them, and that the order should engage with the applicant's actual submissions.
The practical way to avoid Section 15 is procedural discipline. Answer every objection, not just the interesting ones. Keep the amended claims within the limits set by Sections 57 and 59. Watch the Section 21 clock, since running out of time produces abandonment rather than a decision you can appeal. And if a refusal does come, read the order against the record, because an order that decides a point never put to the applicant is a strong ground of appeal.
Why this section matters
Applicants whose objections remain unresolved after examination and hearing, and anyone considering an appeal.
At the end of the examination process, after the applicant has had an opportunity of being heard.
The Controller's power to refuse an application or to require amendment as a condition of proceeding.
The application is refused, the invention has usually already been published, and the only remedy left is an appeal to the High Court.
How it works in practice
A refusal that was appealed successfully in outline
Velavan Precision receives a first examination report raising three objections against its brake bracket application, files a response, and attends a hearing at which only inventive step is discussed. The Controller later refuses the application under Section 15, and the written order relies mainly on a fourth document that was never cited in the examination report and never mentioned at the hearing. The company appeals to the High Court under Section 117A. Its argument is procedural rather than technical: the ground on which the application was actually refused was never put to it, so it had no opportunity to answer. The High Court sets the order aside and remands the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration after giving the company a proper opportunity to respond to the new document. The invention is not saved by the appeal, but the process is restored. The company's counsel notes that this outcome depended on the record showing exactly what was and was not put to the applicant.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Section 15 allows refusal or a requirement of amendment where the Act or Rules are not complied with.
- The power covers substantive grounds such as Sections 3 and 10 as well as formal non-compliance.
- The Controller must be satisfied, must hear the applicant, and must give reasons.
- Refusal is a reasoned decision and is distinct from deemed abandonment under Section 21 or deemed withdrawal under Section 11B.
- Appeals from a Section 15 refusal go to the High Court under Section 117A after the IPAB was abolished in 2021.
- Amendments offered to overcome objections must comply with Sections 57 and 59.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Leaving formal objections unanswered on the assumption that only prior art matters. Any non-compliance can support a refusal.
- Confusing refusal with abandonment. Only a reasoned decision gives you an appeal.
- Offering amendments that add matter or broaden scope, which Sections 57 and 59 do not permit.
- Missing the appeal window after a refusal order, or appealing to the wrong forum because older material still refers to the IPAB.
Connected provisions
- ActSection 14Consideration of report of examiner by Controller
- ActSection 21Time for putting application in order for grant
- ActSection 57Amendment of application and specification before Controller
- ActSection 59Supplementary provisions as to amendment of application or specification
- ActSection 117AAppeals to High Court
You will find the related rules grouped below rather than inside the explanation. The separation is deliberate. The Act and the Rules are distinct legal instruments, and mixing them can lead a reader to attribute a procedural requirement to the statute itself.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- The reply to the first examination report must be filed and the application put in order for grant within the period fixed by Rule 24B read with Section 21; the current framework allows six months from the date of the report with an extension of up to three months on a request filed before expiry. Verify against the Rules in force.
- An appeal against a refusal must be filed in the High Court under Section 117A within the period prescribed for such appeals.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
This site does not carry a fee table. The First Schedule to the Patents Rules is the source, the rates vary with the applicant's category and with the mode of filing, and a figure quoted second-hand goes out of date quietly. How Indian patent fees work.
Amendment history
What changed in this provision, newest first. Read the footnotes in the official consolidated text for the full record.
- 2005The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005The section was replaced. The Controller may require an application or specification to be amended, or may refuse the application, where it does not comply with the Act.
Compiled from official consolidated texts and Gazette notifications. See the site-wide change log.
Related judgments
Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 4/2022 (Delhi High Court, judgment dated 31 March 2022)
Question before the courtHow much reasoning a Controller's order must contain when an application is refused for lack of inventive step.
HeldThe Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the Controller for a fresh decision. It held that an order refusing a patent for obviousness must do three things: say what the cited prior art actually discloses, say what the features of the claimed invention are, and explain why a skilled person would find the step obvious in light of that prior art. Repeating the examination report, or simply asserting obviousness, is not a reasoned order, and the applicant's arguments distinguishing the prior art had to be dealt with.
Case notes are written in our own words from the judgment and are published only after legal review. They are not advice and not a prediction about any other matter. All case notes.
Questions people ask about Section 15
On what grounds can the Controller refuse a patent application in India?
Section 15 allows refusal where the application, specification or any other document does not comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules. In practice the common grounds are lack of novelty or inventive step, subject matter excluded by Section 3 or Section 4, insufficiency or unclear and unsupported claims under Section 10, lack of unity, failure to comply with Section 8 on foreign applications, and unresolved formal defects. The Controller must give reasons and must have heard the applicant first.
Can I appeal against refusal of my patent application in India?
Yes. An appeal against a decision of the Controller under Section 15 lies to the High Court under Section 117A. Before the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, such appeals went to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which was abolished, with its pending matters transferred to the High Courts. Several High Courts have created dedicated intellectual property divisions to hear them. There is a limitation period for filing the appeal, so the refusal order should be reviewed immediately rather than shelved.
What is the difference between refusal and abandonment of a patent application?
Refusal under Section 15 is a reasoned decision by the Controller that the application does not comply with the law. Abandonment under Section 21 happens automatically when the application is not put in order for grant within the period allowed, and deemed withdrawal under Section 11B happens when no examination request is filed in time. The practical difference is remedy. A refusal can be appealed to the High Court on its merits. An application that lapsed by operation of time generally cannot be revived in the same way.
Can the Controller ask me to amend instead of refusing?
Yes, and this is common. Section 15 expressly allows the Controller to require the application, specification or documents to be amended to their satisfaction before proceeding with the application. In practice most objections are resolved by amendment during examination and at the hearing stage. Any amendment must comply with Sections 57 and 59, meaning it must be by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation, must not introduce new matter, and must stay within the scope of the pre-amendment claims.
Has your application been refused under Section 15?
MYCrave Consultancy reviews the refusal order against the record and advises on appeal or refiling options.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.