Section 51 of the Patents Act, 1970
Power of Controller to give directions to co-owners
Section 51 lets the Controller settle disputes between co-owners of a patent by giving directions about licensing, sale, or a co-owner who refuses to sign.
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.
Nothing here replaces the statute. The official wording of the provision, together with any Gazette notification that applies to it, governs. This page only explains that material in ordinary language.
What this section says, in plain language
Section 50 gives co-owners a veto over licensing and assignment. That veto can freeze a valuable patent when relations break down. Section 51 is the release valve. It allows a co-owner to approach the Controller of Patents and ask for directions, so that the patent can still be dealt with even though the owners cannot agree among themselves.
The first limb deals with the substance of the disagreement. Where two or more persons are registered as grantee or proprietor, the Controller may, on the application of any of them, give directions he thinks fit about the sale or lease of the patent or any interest in it, the grant of licences under it, or the exercise of any right under Section 50. The directions bind the parties to whom they are addressed.
The second limb deals with obstruction. Where a co-owner refuses to join in an application to the Controller, or refuses to execute an instrument needed to carry out a direction or to deal with the patent, the Controller may on application by another co-owner direct that the thing be done in the name of the person refusing, and may authorise someone else to sign in his place. The result is that a single uncooperative owner cannot permanently stall the others.
There are real limits. The Controller must give an opportunity to be heard to every person whose interests are affected, and directions must be sought in the manner the Rules prescribe. The Controller will not give a direction that conflicts with an agreement the co-owners have already made between themselves, and will not decide contested questions of ownership or title, which belong to a civil court. Rules 76 to 78 set out how the application is made and how the hearing proceeds.
For most co-owners the practical lesson is that Section 51 exists as a backstop rather than a plan. It is slower and less flexible than a written agreement, and the outcome is in the Controller's discretion, not in the parties' hands.
Why this section matters
Co-owners of a granted Indian patent, including institutions, companies and individual inventors, and licensees who need every proprietor to sign.
When co-owners deadlock over a licence, a sale, or a document that one of them will not execute.
A power in the Controller to direct how a jointly owned patent is dealt with, and to have documents signed on behalf of a refusing co-owner.
A commercially ready patent can sit unused for years while owners argue, and licensees walk away rather than take an incomplete signature set.
How it works in practice
The co-owner who would not sign
A Kanpur textile machinery firm and a state agricultural university jointly own a patent on a low-energy fibre drying unit. A Surat processor offers to take a non-exclusive licence. The university's technology transfer office is willing; the firm's managing partner is abroad and simply does not respond for months, and later refuses to execute the licence because he wants a different royalty structure. The university applies to the Controller under Section 51, explaining the offer, the terms and the refusal. The Controller issues notice, hears both co-owners and the prospective licensee's position on record, and gives directions permitting the licence on stated terms, authorising an officer to execute the document in the firm's name. The patent finally earns revenue. Had the two parties recorded a decision-making clause in their sponsored research agreement, none of this would have been needed, and the licence would have been signed in weeks rather than after a contested hearing.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Any co-owner may apply to the Controller for directions about sale, lease, licensing or exercise of rights.
- The Controller can direct that a document be executed in the name of a co-owner who refuses to sign.
- Everyone whose interest is affected must be given a chance to be heard.
- Directions will not override an existing agreement between the co-owners.
- Disputed questions of ownership or title are for a civil court, not the Controller.
- Rules 76 to 78 govern the procedure for making the application and holding the hearing.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Using Section 51 to try to establish who owns the patent. It manages how a jointly owned patent is used, not who the true owner is.
- Assuming the Controller will simply approve whatever the applying co-owner wants. The directions are discretionary and follow a hearing.
- Forgetting that a written co-ownership agreement takes priority, so a party who signed away a right cannot ask the Controller to restore it.
Connected provisions
Indian patent law works in two layers. The Act carries the substance and the Rules carry the machinery. Because the layers are amended by different processes and at different times, they are presented in separate blocks instead of being merged into one description.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- No fixed statutory deadline applies, but a co-owner should apply promptly, because a stalled licence usually means lost commercial opportunity.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
The official fee for anything described on this page is set out in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. It is not the same for every applicant, and it is not the same for online and physical filing, which is why no amount is stated here. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
This part of the page is reserved for summaries of decided cases. They are added one at a time, after review by a person qualified to confirm that the summary matches the judgment. Nothing has been cleared for this provision so far, so there is nothing to show. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 51
Can the Controller force a co-owner to agree to a licence?
The Controller can give directions about the grant of licences under a jointly owned patent, and can direct that the necessary document be executed in the name of a co-owner who refuses to sign. In that practical sense a refusal can be overcome. The Controller is not simply rubber-stamping the applicant's proposal though. Every affected person gets a hearing, the directions are discretionary, and an existing agreement between the co-owners will be respected rather than rewritten.
What is the difference between Section 50 and Section 51?
Section 50 states the substantive default rules for jointly owned patents: equal undivided shares, a right for each co-owner to work the invention alone, and a requirement of consent from all for licensing or assignment. Section 51 is procedural. It gives the Controller the power to intervene when co-owners cannot agree, by issuing directions or authorising execution of documents. Section 50 tells you what the rights are; Section 51 tells you what to do when the rights cannot be exercised because of a deadlock.
Does Section 51 apply to pending applications or only granted patents?
The power is framed around persons registered as grantee or proprietor of a patent, so it is aimed at granted patents. Disputes at the application stage are usually handled differently, for example through Section 20 where an interest is transferred or a claim about entitlement arises, or through the ordinary contract route between the parties. If a collaboration is heading for a dispute before grant, the practical step is to fix ownership and decision-making in writing rather than to wait for a statutory remedy.
Deadlocked with a co-owner over your patent?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares Section 51 applications and negotiates settlements so a jointly owned patent can be licensed or sold.
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.