Powers of Controller to make orders regarding substitution of applicants etc
Section 20 of the Patents Act, 1970 deals with powers of Controller to make orders regarding substitution of applicants etc. If the Controller is satisfied, on a claim made in the prescribed manner at any time before a patent has been granted, that by virtue of any assignment or agreement in writing made by the applicant or one of the applicants for the patent or by operation of law, the claimant would, if the patent were The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1978.
(1) If the Controller is satisfied, on a claim made in the prescribed manner at any time before a patent has been granted, that by virtue of any assignment or agreement in writing made by the applicant or one of the applicants for the patent or by operation of law, the claimant would, if the patent were then granted be entitled thereto or to the interest of the applicant therein, or to an undivided share of the patent or of that interest, the Controller may, subject to the provisions of this section, direct that the application shall proceed in the name of the claimant or in the names of the claimants and the applicant or the other joint applicant or applicants, accordingly as the case may require.
(2) No such direction as aforesaid shall be given by virtue of any assignment or agreement made by one of two or more joint applicants for a patent except with the consent of the other joint applicant or applicants.
(3) No such direction as aforesaid shall be given by virtue of any assignment or agreement for the assignment of the benefit of an invention unless--
(a) the invention is identified therein by reference to the number of the application for the patent; or
(b) there is produced to the Controller an acknowledgment by the person by whom the assignment or agreement was made that the assignment or agreement relates to the invention in respect of which that application is made; or
(c) the rights of the claimant in respect of the invention have been finally established by the decision of a court; or
(d) the Controller gives directions for enabling the application to proceed or for regulating the manner in which it should be proceeded with under sub-section (5).
(4) Where one of two or more joint applicants for a patent dies at any time before the patent has been granted, the Controller may, upon a request in that behalf made by the survivor or survivors, and with the consent of the legal representative of the deceased, direct that the application shall proceed in the name of the survivor or survivors alone.
(5) If any dispute arises between joint applicants for a patent whether or in what manner the application should be proceeded with, the Controller may, upon application made to him in the prescribed manner by any of the parties, and after giving to all parties concerned an opportunity to be heard, give such directions as he thinks fit for enabling the application to proceed in the name of one or more of the parties alone or for regulating the manner in which it should be proceeded with, or for both those purposes, as the case may require.
Section 20, 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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Euro-apex B.V. v. Controller of Patents and Designs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Controller’s s.15 refusal must be a speaking order after putting the applicant on notice of each ground. Refusal resting on inventor-change / Korean nullification grounds never flagged in the FER or hearing notices violates natural justice; cryptic s.15 refusal ignoring deed of assignment and Dutch arbitral award is unsustainable and remittable.
On this section: Court held the second refusal reason (want of assignment under s.20(1)/r.34) baseless because the deed of assignment was filed and its correctness upheld up to the Supreme Court in related litigation.
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
2 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Patents Act?
Euro-apex B.V. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (11 Mar 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Court held the second refusal reason (want of assignment under s.20(1)/r.34) baseless because the deed of assignment was filed and its correctness upheld up to the Supreme Court in related litigation.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 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 20, section 20 Patents Act, section 20 of the Patents Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Euro-apex B.V. v. Controller of Patents and Designs (11 Mar 2025).
What should I read with Section 20 of the Patents Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. 2 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Patents (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2020 (2020), then The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (2014).
When did Section 20 of the Patents Act come into force?
Section 20 of the Patents Act, cited as Patents Act 20, 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 16 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.