Rule 36 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Manner of application under section 20(5)
Explains how one joint applicant can ask the Controller for directions when co-applicants cannot agree on how a pending application should proceed.
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.
The authority is the enacted text, not this page. Where our wording and the official provision, or an applicable Gazette notification, do not match, the official material prevails.
What this rule requires, step by step
Joint applications are common. Two founders file together, a company files with a university, or three researchers put their names on the same specification. Trouble starts when they stop agreeing. One wants to pay the examination fee and press on, another wants to abandon and keep the idea secret, a third has simply stopped answering emails. A pending application needs decisions on strict timelines, and deadlock kills it. This rule provides the way out.
Any of the joint applicants may apply to the Controller on Form 6, with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule, setting out what the disagreement is and what direction is being asked for. The application should be specific. Asking for permission to prosecute the application alone, or for the application to proceed in the names of two of three joint applicants, is a request the Controller can act on. A general complaint about a co-applicant's behaviour is not.
Before giving any direction, the Controller gives every joint applicant a chance to be heard. That is not a formality. The direction can change who prosecutes the application and, in some situations, in whose name it proceeds, so each party is entitled to state its case. The Controller can then give the directions needed to let the application move forward, which may include allowing one or more applicants to carry it on alone, or regulating how the prosecution is to be handled.
It is worth being realistic about what this achieves. The Controller is deciding how a pending application is to be prosecuted, not settling the underlying commercial quarrel or dividing the value of the invention. Questions of beneficial ownership, breach of a shareholders' agreement or a claim for a share of royalties are for a civil court. The great advantage of this route is speed: it keeps the filing alive and the priority date intact while the bigger dispute is sorted out elsewhere.
Why this rule matters
Co-founders, research collaborators, universities and companies who filed a patent application jointly and have fallen out.
While the application is pending, particularly when a reply, an examination request or a fee is due and one applicant will not cooperate.
A power in the Controller, on request and after hearing everyone, to give directions that let the application go forward despite the disagreement.
The application misses a deadline and is treated as abandoned, and everybody loses the invention's priority, including the applicant who was ready to proceed.
How it works in practice
Two founders, one deadline
Ravi Deshmukh and Farhana Qureshi filed a joint application for a cold-chain sensor tag through their Pune start-up. Eighteen months later the partnership broke down. Ravi wanted to continue and had funding lined up. Farhana had joined a rival firm and refused to sign anything, hoping the filing would quietly lapse. The examination report reply was due in ten weeks. Ravi's agent filed an application on Form 6 with the prescribed fee, explaining the deadlock and asking for a direction that Ravi be permitted to prosecute the application alone. The Controller gave Farhana notice and both attended a hearing. Farhana argued that she had contributed the sensing algorithm. The Controller noted that the ownership dispute belonged in a civil court, but directed that Ravi could carry the prosecution forward so the application would not be lost. The reply was filed in time, Farhana's name stayed on the application, and the two settled their financial dispute separately a year later.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Any one of the joint applicants can start this process; unanimity is not required.
- The request goes on Form 6 with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule.
- Every joint applicant gets an opportunity to be heard before a direction is given.
- The Controller decides how the application should be prosecuted, not who ultimately owns the invention.
- The main benefit is preserving the filing date while a commercial dispute continues elsewhere.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Waiting for the co-applicant to come around. Deadlines run regardless, and an abandoned application cannot usually be revived.
- Expecting the Controller to award ownership shares or damages. Those are civil court questions.
- Filing a vague request. State the deadlock, the deadline at risk, and the exact direction you want.
Connected provisions
A rule is subordinate legislation. It is made by the Central Government under a rule-making power in the Act and is amended by notification rather than by Parliament. The parent sections are listed on their own so that the source and the procedure are never confused.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Where a form is required, the Second Schedule to the Patents Rules prescribes it. Superseded versions circulate widely online, so download the current form from the Patent Office and check it against the rule before use.
- Start early. The direction takes time because every joint applicant must be heard, and the application still has to be put in order for grant within the period fixed by the Act and Rules.
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
Case law is added slowly and deliberately. A summary is drafted, checked against the reported judgment and then reviewed before publication, because a wrong case note can mislead a reader badly. No summary for this provision has reached publication yet. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 36
What can I do if my co-applicant refuses to cooperate on a patent application?
You can apply to the Controller on Form 6 with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule, explain the deadlock and ask for a direction allowing the application to proceed. All joint applicants are given a chance to be heard. The Controller can direct how the prosecution is to be carried on, including letting one or more applicants continue alone. Do this well before any deadline, because the hearing process takes time and missed deadlines are usually fatal.
Does the Controller decide who owns a jointly filed invention?
No. The Controller's role here is to keep the application moving, by giving directions about how it is to be prosecuted. Questions about beneficial ownership, contribution, breach of contract or a share of future income are decided by a civil court. Many disputes are resolved in two tracks: a direction from the Controller to protect the filing, and a separate settlement or suit dealing with the money.
Can one joint applicant abandon a patent application in India?
A joint applicant cannot usually force abandonment on the others by simply refusing to act, because the others can seek directions from the Controller. Equally, one applicant cannot quietly remove another's name. The safest course when a collaboration begins is a written agreement covering who pays the fees, who instructs the agent, and what happens if one party wants out. That contract prevents most of these applications ever being needed.
Deadlocked with a co-applicant on a pending application?
MYCrave Consultancy files for directions and keeps your filing date safe while the dispute is resolved.
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.