Power of Controller to make orders respecting division of application
Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with power of Controller to make orders respecting division of application. A person who has made an application for a patent under this Act may, at any time [before the grant of the patent], if he so desires, or with a view to remedy the objection raised by the Controller on the ground that the claims of the complete specification relate to more than one invention, file a The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1978.
(1) A person who has made an application for a patent under this Act may, at any time 1[before the grant of the patent], if he so desires, or with a view to remedy the objection raised by the Controller on the ground that the claims of the complete specification relate to more than one invention, file a further application in respect of an invention disclosed in the provisional or complete specification already filed in respect of the first mentioned application.
(2) The further application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a complete specification, but such complete specification shall not include any matter not in substance disclosed in the complete specification filed in pursuance of the first mentioned application.
(3) The Controller may require such amendment of the complete specification filed in pursuance of either the original or the further application as may be necessary to ensure that neither of the said complete specifications includes a claim for any matter claimed in the other.
2[Explanation.-- For the purposes of this Act, the further application and the complete specification accompanying it shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which the first mentioned application had been filed, and the further application shall be proceeded with as a substantive application and be examined when the request for examination is filed within the prescribed period.]
Section 16, The Patents Act, 1970 (Act 39 of 1970).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
University College London v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
s.16(1) permits a divisional application before parent grant either if the applicant 'so desires' or to remedy a Controller plurality objection; unilateral filing is allowed, but the Controller must still examine whether the parent complete specification discloses more than one invention and give reasoned consideration to plurality evidence (including experimental data) rather than treat absence of a prior plurality objection as fatal.
On this section: True
-
BASF SE v. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
s.16 requires a divisional to be filed before grant of the parent; where the divisional is filed on the same calendar day as grant and the applicant cannot know the exact grant timing, refusal solely for alleged post-grant filing (and on distinctiveness grounds never flagged in the hearing notice) is non-application of mind and natural-justice failure — remand to a different Controller for merits consideration.
On this section: True
-
Gensquare LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
s.16 requires that divisional claims flow from the parent complete specification, not that they must flow from the parent claims; Controller refusal predicated on Boehringer (Del HC SJ) that divisionals must track parent claims is unsustainable once Syngenta (Del HC DB) overruled that view — impugned order set aside for de novo consideration by another Controller.
On this section: True
-
Martinswerk GmbH v. The Controller of Patents and Designs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Controller’s s.16 refusal must record reasons why the parent does not disclose more than one invention and must engage with the applicant’s ISA unity-of-invention materials and written submissions; bald reference to hearing-notice conclusions without dealing with the reply is unsustainable — remanded for reasoned reconsideration by another officer.
On this section: True
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
4 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 16
What have the courts held on Section 16 of the Patents Act?
University College London v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (04 Mar 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: True. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2023 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 16 of the Patents Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Patents Act 16, section 16 Patents Act, section 16 of the Patents Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with University College London v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (04 Mar 2025).
What should I read with Section 16 of the Patents Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 4 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2016 (2016), then The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (2013).
When did Section 16 of the Patents Act come into force?
Section 16 of the Patents Act, cited as Patents Act 16, came into force on 01 Apr 1978, having been enacted on 19 Sep 1970. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.