Rule 67 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Form of making a claim under section 28(3)
Gives a person who believes they invented something the way to claim, in their own name, to be mentioned as an inventor.
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 rule requires, step by step
Rule 66 covers the situation where the applicant or patentee wants an inventor added. Rule 67 covers the harder situation: the person who did the inventive work has been left out, and the owner of the application has not fixed it. Section 28(3) allows that person to come forward on their own. Rule 67 tells them how, by making a claim to the Controller on Form 8 with the fee prescribed in the First Schedule.
The claim has to do real work. It should identify the application or patent by number, set out what the claimant actually devised, and connect that contribution to the invention described and claimed in the complete specification. Vague statements about being part of a team rarely succeed. Dated records made at the time of the work carry far more weight than a recollection written years later.
Because a claim under section 28(3) contradicts what the applicant has already told the Patent Office, it is not decided quietly. The Controller follows Rule 69: the claim is put to the applicant or patentee, they may answer it, and both sides get an opportunity to be heard before any direction is given. The Controller decides only whether the claimant is an inventor, not who owns what.
A successful claim changes the record, not the property. The claimant's name appears on the patent and in the Patent Office records as an inventor. Ownership stays where the assignments and contracts put it. For researchers, that recognition can still matter a great deal for promotions, academic credit, institutional incentive schemes and professional reputation.
Why this rule matters
Research students, interns, contract engineers, former employees and collaborators whose names were left off a patent application.
After discovering that an application or granted patent covers work you contributed to but does not name you.
A personal right to ask the Controller, rather than a civil court, to be recognised as an inventor on a specific patent.
The public record permanently credits others for your work, and correcting it later becomes harder as memories fade and records are lost.
How it works in practice
A research scholar claims her place
Ananya Rao spent eight months as a project scholar in a materials laboratory at a Kanpur engineering institute, working with a spin-off company on a low-cost water filtration membrane. She designed and tested the pore-forming step that made the membrane work at low pressure. After she left, the spin-off filed a patent application naming only its two founders. Ananya finds the published application online and sees her pore-forming step described almost word for word in the specification. She files a claim under section 28(3) on Form 8, attaching her dated laboratory notebook pages, two internal progress reports she wrote, and the email in which a founder asked her to write up the method. The Controller sends the claim to the company, which files a reply, and both sides are heard. The Controller is satisfied on the records and directs that Ananya be mentioned as an inventor. She gains recognition; ownership of the patent stays with the company.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- Rule 67 is the omitted inventor's own remedy, filed on Form 8 with the prescribed fee.
- Tie your contribution to specific parts of the complete specification, not to the project in general.
- Contemporaneous records such as notebooks, drawings and emails decide most of these claims.
- The claim is contested procedure: the applicant or patentee gets to answer and both sides are heard under Rule 69.
- Success gives you your name on the patent, not a share of it.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Waiting years before acting. Evidence disappears, colleagues move on, and the section 28 timing limits may close the route entirely.
- Claiming inventorship for suggesting the problem or funding the project. Indian practice looks for a contribution to the inventive concept that is claimed.
- Expecting the Controller to settle an ownership or royalty dispute. Section 28 decides naming only; ownership fights belong elsewhere.
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
Prescribed forms sit in the Second Schedule to the Patents Rules. The Schedule is updated along with the Rules, so the safe practice is to download the form on the day you prepare it and check that it is the current version.
- Section 28 sets the limits on when a claim to be mentioned as an inventor can still be made, so check the current section and Rules early rather than assuming the claim can wait.
Open the deadline calculator — and have every date confirmed against the current Rules before you rely on it.
Fees are prescribed in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. Because the Schedule is revised from time to time, and charges different amounts to different categories of applicant and for physical as against electronic filing, this page describes the fee without stating a figure. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
Case summaries are published only after a qualified reviewer has checked the judgment, the citation and the way the holding is described. Nothing has cleared that review for this provision yet, so nothing is listed here. We would rather show no case note than one that misstates what a court decided. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 67
I was left off a patent from my old employer. What can I do?
If you genuinely contributed to the invention as claimed, section 28(3) lets you claim to be mentioned as an inventor, and Rule 67 tells you to make that claim on Form 8 with the prescribed fee. Identify the application or patent number, describe exactly what you devised, and attach dated proof from the time of the work. The Controller will put your claim to the patentee and hear both sides before deciding. Remember that this route corrects the naming only. If you believe you also own rights, that is a separate question that turns on your contract.
What counts as an inventive contribution?
Indian practice looks for a contribution to the conception of the invention that the claims cover, not to the project as a whole. Building equipment to someone else's design, running tests set by others, arranging funding, or managing the team usually does not qualify. Working out the specific step, structure, combination or parameter that makes the claimed invention work usually does. A useful test is to read each independent claim and ask whether you contributed to the idea it captures. If the answer is yes for at least one claim, a section 28(3) claim is worth considering.
Will the patent owner be told about my claim?
Yes. A claim under section 28(3) says that the record the applicant filed is incomplete, so the Controller cannot decide it behind closed doors. Rule 69 requires the claim to be communicated, gives the applicant or patentee a chance to answer, and gives both sides an opportunity to be heard before the Controller makes any direction. Expect the process to be adversarial and to take time. Prepare as you would for a small hearing: clear facts, dated documents and a short, calm written statement.
Left off a patent you helped invent?
MYCrave Consultancy assesses inventorship claims, assembles the evidence and represents inventors before the Controller.
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.