Rule 66 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Form of making a request under section 28(2)
Sets out how an applicant or patentee formally asks the Controller to record a named person as an inventor in a patent.
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
Section 28 of the Patents Act deals with naming the people who actually made an invention. Ownership and inventorship are two different things in Indian law. The patent belongs to the applicant, which is often a company, a university or a research body. The inventors are the human beings who devised the invention. Rule 66 handles one branch of section 28: the route by which the applicant or the patentee itself asks the Controller to have a particular person mentioned as an inventor.
The request is made in writing on the Patent Office form kept for this purpose, Form 8, along with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule. The form calls for the person's full name, address and nationality and for a short statement showing how that person contributed to the invention described in the specification. Where a company makes the request, it must be signed by someone entitled to act for the company or by its registered patent agent.
Being mentioned as an inventor is recognition, not ownership. The mention does not give that person a share in the patent, does not let them grant a licence, and does not let them stop the patentee from assigning or selling it. Who owns the patent is decided by the application itself, by an assignment deed, or by the terms of employment. Keeping the two ideas apart avoids most inventor-naming disputes.
Section 28 itself, not this rule, decides how late such a request may be made and what the Controller must be satisfied about before allowing it. Rule 66 only fixes the shape of the request. If someone disputes the facts stated in the request, the Controller does not decide on paper alone; the procedure in Rule 69 brings the parties in and gives each of them a chance to be heard.
Why this rule matters
Companies, startups, universities and research institutions that file patents, and the engineers, scientists and research students whose names belong on them.
During prosecution of an application, and later whenever an audit or a due diligence exercise shows the recorded inventor list is incomplete.
A cheap, defined administrative route for the applicant or patentee to have a person added as an inventor, decided by the Controller rather than a court.
The patent and the public record carry an inventor list that does not match the truth, which can embarrass the owner in a dispute and can prompt a claim by the omitted person.
How it works in practice
The engineer who was left off the form
Kestrel Robotics Pvt Ltd in Pune files a patent application for a battery swapping mechanism for delivery scooters. Two senior engineers are named as inventors on the filing papers. Meera Iyer, a junior design engineer, actually worked out the spring-loaded latch that the main claim depends on, but she had moved to another employer by the time the papers were signed and nobody added her name. A year later the company's head of IP reviews the file before an investor's due diligence and spots the gap. The company files a request under section 28(2) on Form 8, giving Meera's details and a short account of the latch design and the dated laboratory records that support it. The Controller is satisfied and directs that she be mentioned as an inventor. Meera's name now appears on the patent, while the company keeps full ownership because her employment contract had already assigned rights in her work to it.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Rule 66 is the applicant's or patentee's route to add an inventor; the inventor's own route is Rule 67.
- The request goes in on Form 8 with the fee set out in the First Schedule.
- Give the person's particulars and a clear account of what they contributed to the claimed invention.
- A mention as inventor gives recognition only, never a share in the patent.
- Contested requests are decided after a hearing under Rule 69, not on paper.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Assuming that adding an inventor transfers part of the patent to that person. Ownership moves only by assignment, by contract, or by operation of law.
- Naming a manager or head of department who supervised the project but contributed nothing inventive. Section 28 is about who devised the invention.
- Treating the request as a mere clerical correction. The Controller has to be satisfied on the facts, so supporting material matters.
Connected provisions
This page explains a rule of the Patents Rules, 2003. A rule does not stand on its own; it works out a duty or a power that the Patents Act, 1970 has already created. The parent sections are listed separately so you can read the source of that authority.
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.
- Section 28 governs how late a request to mention an inventor can be made. Check the current text of section 28 and the Rules before assuming the door is still open on an old case.
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
Court decisions shape how this provision is applied, but a summary is useful only if it is right. Every case note on this site is read by a legal reviewer before it goes live, and none has been completed for this provision so far. This section will fill in as those reviews finish. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 66
Does being named as an inventor give me ownership of the patent?
No. Indian law separates the two. The inventor is the person who devised the invention; the patentee is the person or company that owns it. Section 28 lets the true inventor be named on the patent and in the Patent Office records, but that mention does not give a share, a right to licence, or a right to any royalty. Ownership comes from the application itself, from an assignment deed, or from an employment contract that assigns work-related inventions to the employer. Many disputes disappear once this difference is understood.
Can a company ask for its own employee to be named as inventor?
Yes, and that is exactly the situation Rule 66 is built for. The applicant or patentee makes the request on Form 8 with the prescribed fee, giving the employee's name, address and nationality and explaining what that employee contributed. The Controller looks at whether the person really devised part of the claimed invention. Because the company already owns the invention through the employment contract, adding the employee as an inventor changes nothing about ownership. It simply makes the public record accurate.
What supporting material helps a request under section 28(2)?
Anything contemporaneous that ties the person to the inventive contribution. Dated laboratory notebooks, signed design records, internal invention disclosure forms, version-controlled drawings, project reports and email trails all work well. A short statement mapping the person's contribution to specific claims of the complete specification is more persuasive than a general assertion that they were part of the team. Where several people are involved, explain who did which part. The Controller has to be satisfied on the facts, so evidence beats adjectives.
Need to add an inventor to your patent record?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares section 28 requests, gathers the supporting evidence and handles the Patent Office correspondence.
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.