Rule 69 of the Patents Rules, 2003
Procedure for the hearing of a claim or an application under section 28
Lays down the fair hearing procedure the Controller follows before deciding any contested question about who is named as 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.
This explanation is written for clarity, not for citation. The official statutory text and any Gazette notification in force on your date govern, and they prevail over anything said here.
What this rule requires, step by step
Rules 66, 67 and 68 create three different requests about the naming of inventors. Rule 69 supplies the common procedure for deciding the contested ones. Its purpose is simple: nobody's name is added, removed or refused on one party's word alone. Every affected person gets notice, a chance to answer and an opportunity to be heard before the Controller gives any direction.
In practice the sequence runs like this. A claim under Rule 67 or an application under Rule 68 reaches the Controller. Copies are sent to the applicant, the patentee and anyone else the record shows is affected. Those parties may put in a statement setting out their version, with documents. If a hearing is needed, the Controller gives notice of the date and the parties, or their registered patent agents, attend and make their case. The Controller then passes a reasoned order.
Two boundaries are worth remembering. First, the Controller in these proceedings decides who devised the invention, not who owns the patent or who should be paid. Second, the enquiry is document-led. It is not a trial with witnesses in the box; the parties are expected to place the material they rely on before the Controller with their statements, and to explain it clearly.
The Controller's decision on a section 28 question is not the last word. Section 28 sits among the decisions that can be taken in appeal to the High Court under section 117A, following the transfer of appellate work from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Because of that, the quality of the record built before the Controller matters: an appeal is far easier to argue when the evidence and the arguments were set out properly at the first stage.
Why this rule matters
Applicants, patentees and individuals on either side of an inventor-naming dispute, and the patent agents who represent them.
As soon as a claim or application about the mention of an inventor is filed and the other side disagrees.
A right to notice and to a hearing before the Controller changes or refuses to change the recorded inventors of a patent.
A party who does not respond to the notice or attend the hearing effectively lets the other side's version stand unanswered.
How it works in practice
Two versions of the same laboratory
A biotechnology startup in Hyderabad holds a patent for a diagnostic reagent kit. A former research associate, Farhan Qureshi, files a claim to be mentioned as an inventor, saying he devised the buffer combination described in the second independent claim. The Controller sends his claim to the startup, which replies that Farhan only ran the assays and that the buffer came from its scientific head. Both sides file documents: Farhan produces dated notebook pages and an internal disclosure form he had signed, and the company produces a project plan and its own experiment logs. The Controller issues notice of hearing. Farhan appears in person and the company appears through its patent agent, and each takes the Controller through their documents. The Controller finds the notebook entries decisive on the buffer combination and directs that Farhan be mentioned as an inventor alongside the scientific head. The order records the reasoning, so either side knows exactly what to challenge if they appeal to the High Court.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- No inventor-naming decision is made without notice to everyone affected.
- Each side files a statement with the documents it relies on before the hearing.
- The Controller decides inventorship only, not ownership, royalties or damages.
- Hearings can be attended in person or through a registered patent agent.
- The Controller passes a reasoned order, which can be carried to the High Court under section 117A.
Common mistakes and misunderstandings
- Treating the Controller's notice as routine correspondence. Failing to reply on time can mean the other side's account is accepted without challenge.
- Bringing new documents for the first time at the hearing. The Controller expects the material to be filed with the statement so the other side can deal with it.
- Arguing about who should own the patent or share the revenue. Those questions have to be taken elsewhere; this proceeding is about naming.
Connected provisions
The link between a rule and its section matters in practice, because an argument about whether a procedure is valid usually starts with the parent provision. The connected sections are listed here, apart from the explanation, so the chain of authority is easy to follow.
Forms, deadlines and fees
- The Controller fixes the time for filing statements and gives notice of the hearing date. Diary those dates as soon as they arrive, because extensions are discretionary and are not guaranteed.
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.
Related judgments
No judgment summaries appear here yet. Our process requires a legal review of each case note before publication, covering the citation, the court and the point actually decided. Until a note for this provision has passed that check, the section stays empty rather than carrying unverified material. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Rule 69
Will there be an oral hearing on an inventorship claim?
Usually yes, once the parties disagree. Rule 69 exists so that a contested question about naming an inventor is decided only after everyone affected has had notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Controller sends the claim or application to the other side, allows a written reply, and then fixes a hearing. Hearings before the Controller are commonly held by video conference in India, which makes it practical for a party in another city to attend. You may appear yourself or send a registered patent agent.
What should I file with my statement?
File everything you want the Controller to read, and file it with your statement rather than later. The strongest material is anything created at the time of the work: dated laboratory notebooks, signed invention disclosure forms, design revisions, test logs, internal reports and emails discussing the technical idea. Add a short covering note that links each document to the specific claim of the complete specification it supports. Long, unmarked bundles do not help. A crisp, well-indexed set of records is what usually decides these matters.
Can I appeal if the Controller decides against me?
Yes. Decisions of the Controller under section 28 fall within the list of appealable decisions in section 117A. Since the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 abolished the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, those appeals go to the High Court that has jurisdiction. Appeals carry their own limitation period and procedure, so act quickly once the order is received. It also pays to build the record properly at the first stage, because an appellate court works largely from the material that was already placed before the Controller.
Facing a hearing on who invented what?
MYCrave Consultancy prepares the statements, organises the evidence and represents parties in section 28 hearings 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.