Inventorship Disputes in R&D Teams

Introduction : Ask any research team, “Who invented this?” and you will usually get a fast, confident answer. Ask the same question again after eighteen months, after the patent has been issued, the product has shipped, and a co-founder or contract researcher has quietly moved on, and the very same question can turn into a legal dispute. Inventorship disputes rarely start with malice. They start with silence. Nobody wrote down who suggested the key idea or the whiteboard photo, and nobody thought an email chain would ever matter to a Controller of Patents.

This article examines how Inventorship is determined under Indian patent law, the statutory provisions, how disputes surface, and what preventive drafting steps one should build into their processes from day one.

What “Inventorship” Actually Means

Inventorship VS Ownership

Inventorship and ownership are two separate and distinct concepts. Inventorship arises from the conception of an invention. An “inventor” is a natural person who contributes intellectually to the claimed invention or contributes to the conception of the claimed invention. There can be several joint inventors so long as each contributes to the conception of the claimed invention. An inventor cannot be a corporation or any other business entity, an assignee, the supervisor or manager of the inventor, or one who merely reduces the invention to practice, carries out the inventor(s)’ instructions, or merely discovers but does not solve a problem. Patent ownership, on the other hand, is derived from fundamental property law and follows Inventorship. Ownership of a patent or patent application initially vests in the named inventors of the invention, or the inventor is considered the owner unless and until he transfers his interest to another.

Who May Apply – Section 6

The Indian Patents Act does not explicitly define the “inventor”. However, it identifies the categories of persons entitled to apply for a patent, including the true and first inventor, and the assignee of such a person.

Section 6 of the Patent Act, 1970, identifies who may apply for a patent, which includes any person claiming to be “true and first inventor” of the invention; the assignee of such a person, in respect of the right to make the application; or the legal representative of a deceased person who was entitled to apply. Moreover, Section 6 permits an application to be made alone or jointly with others, which is the statutory doorway through which joint Inventorship enters Indian patent practice.

The phrase ‘true and the first inventor’ is the key point here. India, like the UK from which its patent framework is descended, does not protect the person who merely thinks of an idea in isolation and does nothing with it. As per Indian Doctrine, an invention that is conceived but kept secret and never disclosed offers no benefit to the public, does not get the protection, and a subsequent independent inventor who genuinely discloses and files is generally treated as the person whom the law protects, reinforcing that Indian patent law rewards disclosure through filing rather than private conception alone.

The Right To Be Mentioned – Section 28

Section 28 of the Patents Act allows a person to request recognition as an inventor. It gives an inventor a distinct statutory right to be named in the patent application, separate from who owns it. This is one of the most important feature of Indian law, which ensure that ownership and attribution are not fused into a single question. A company can validly own a patent through assignment while remaining under a statutory obligation to name the actual inventor on the document itself. If the Controller is satisfied upon request and supporting evidence that a particular individual is the true inventor, that person is entered as such, and this entry then carries an evidentiary weight of its own in later disputes.

Rule 68 of the Patent Rules provides for corrections to Inventorship. So, if a rightful inventor is unintentionally left out or excluded due to a dispute, they must act before the patent is granted to be added as an inventor. Once a patent is granted in India, the law does not allow the addition of a new inventor. Section 57 allows for corrections of clerical errors, but it does not cover adding new inventors. Section 64 provides grounds for revocation, including incorrect Inventorship, but this applies only to challenges.

Joint Application And The Section 20 Mechanism

Section 20 of the Act gives the Controller specific powers to resolve the dispute Where Inventorship or entitlement is genuinely contested between people who have jointly applied. Under Section 20(5), if a dispute arises between joint applicants as to whether or how the application should proceed, any party may apply to the Controller, who, after allowing all parties to be heard, can direct that the application proceed in the name of one or more parties alone, or regulate how it proceeds. Section 20(1) further allows a claimant who can show an assignment, agreement, or entitlement by operation of law to be substituted into the application. Rather than moving to litigation, Indian law resolves many Inventorship-and-entitlement disputes through the Patent Office itself in the first instance.

Wrongful Obtainment

At the centre of most Inventorship disputes under Indian patent law lies the doctrine of wrongful obtainment. Rather than treating Inventorship merely as a question of recognition, the Patents Act, 1970, views the unauthorised appropriation of an invention as a legal wrong capable of affecting the validity of a patent. The Phrase “wrongfully obtained” appears in three separate, mutually reinforcing places in the act:

• Section 25(1)(a) – a ground for pre-grant opposition, allowing any person to oppose an application on the basis that the applicant, or someone through whom they claim, wrongfully obtained the invention or any part of it from the opponent.
• Section 25(2)(a) – the equivalent ground for post-grant opposition, available to any “person interested” within one year of the grant being published.
• Section 64(1)(a)- a ground for revocation of a granted patent at any later stage, available on petition by any interested person, the Central Government, or as a counterclaim in an infringement suit, where the patentee or a person through whom they claim wrongfully obtained the invention from the petitioner or someone under or through whom the petitioner claims.

Reading it together, these three provisions mean that a person whose contribution was excluded, or whose idea was appropriated or used without due credit or assignment, has three windows to challenge the patent, namely before grant, shortly after grant, and at any time thereafter through revocation or as a defence to an infringement claim. Section 64(1)(b) provides a related ground that a patent can also be revoked where it was granted on the application of a person not entitled to apply under the act at all, which, read with Section 6, effectively requires that the patent be revocable in favour of restoring it to the true and first inventor.

Disclosure Obligations – Section 8

Section 8 requires that the applicants disclose the details of corresponding applications filed in some other countries to keep the Controller updated. While this provision is primarily aimed at foreign-filing transparency, failure to disclose required information, or the furnishing of false information under Section 8, is itself an independent ground for revocation under Section 64(1)(m)

Further, the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, establish the Certificate of Inventorship, which essentially acknowledges the roles of all co-inventors involved in a patented idea. Historically, Indian patent certificates did not mention the names of any prior inventors; however, this new clause now allows inventors to get due recognition for their efforts. The rules prescribe the mechanisms to be put in place in order to ensure proper inventor identification, hence reducing the likelihood of conflicts as to who the inventors are and ownership issues afterwards. The certificate of Inventorship adds legal structure to recognition of inventors, thereby making sure that the inventors have a place in the whole patent system and also improving the patent system.

The Legal Test – What Counts As A Genuine Contribution

The Conceptual Standard

An inventor is a person who has made an intellectual contribution to the subject matter claimed in at least one claim of the patent application. Mere execution of someone else’s design, mere supervision, mere funding, or the mere provision of standard equipment or infrastructure does not create Inventorship on its own.

The National Institute Of Virology Case

The question of who qualifies as an inventor is addressed in National Institute of Virology v. Mrs Vandana Bhide, decided by the Controller of Patents. In the given case, the Controller laid down a clear evaluative principle for being named an inventor: a person must have contributed intellectually to the outcome of the scientific work that led to the invention. A person who has not made such an intellectual contribution does not qualify to be included as an inventor, no matter how closely they have been associated with the project. The decision also recognised the reality of modern collaborative science that a patentable outcome is frequently the product of a chain of cooperation in which multiple participants each contribute genuine intellectual input, meaning Inventorship in India is assessed contribution-by-contribution rather than defaulting to “everyone on the team”. In VB Mohammed Ibrahim v Alfred Schafranek & Ors and Shining Industries v Sri Krishna Industries, the courts ruled that an inventor must provide a technical contribution and be a natural person. It is clear from these cases that there must be some intellectual contribution to be called an inventor, and thus, it cannot be abstract.

This decision matters because it establishes that Indian law does not treat Inventorship as a proxy for institutional seniority or funding but isolates the specific intellectual act.

Presumption Attached To The Named Inventor

As per Indian patent law, there is a rebuttable presumption that once a person is named as inventor under Section 28 and the Controller is satisfied of that fact, that person is presumed to be the true inventor unless successfully challenged under Sections 25(1)(a), 25(2)(a), or 64(1)(a).

Why It Matters : Validity, Ownership, And Enforceability

Validity

Unlike some jurisdictions where an honest Inventorship error can be easily corrected without threatening the patent itself, the Indian law system does not provide the same. Patent law treats wrongfully obtained as a freestanding ground for opposition and revocation at every stage of the patent’s life, including pre-grant, post-grant, and throughout its twenty-year term. A patent that survives examination and is granted is not immune from challenges on Inventorship grounds. Section 64(1)(a) keeps that door open indefinitely, including as a counterclaim raised defensively in an infringement suit year later on. This legal position underscores the importance of getting Inventorship right the first time because a strategically filed revocation petition by a competitor, once litigation begins, can use a genuine but long-dormant Inventorship defect to unravel the entire patent.

Ownership Is A Separate, Contractual Question

Section 6 state that who may apply, but the actual ownership of the resulting patent, if once granted, is governed by principles of contract law through Indian Contract Act, 1872, and, for employees, the terms of the employment agreement read together with common-law principle recognising that inventions made by an employee in the course of employment, using the employer’s resources, and within the scope of their duties, ordinarily belong to the employer. This is not automatic and ultimate but depends on case to case; however, where the invention falls outside the scope of the employee’s normal duties, or where the contract is silent on the same or poorly drafted, ownership can remain genuinely contested. Courts will look to the actual terms of the agreement rather than assuming employer ownership by default.

A patent whose Inventorship is challenged, or whose true inventor was never properly assigned, faces mainly two risks, firstly, the risk of revocation under Section 64, which extinguishes the patent entirely and second, risk that an unassigned genuine inventor retains an independent, undivided interest that can complicate licensing, enforcement, and particularly relevant to India’s growing start up and pharmaceutical sectors,  due diligence in funding rounds and cross-border licensing deals, where Inventorship title is a standard diligence item.

The Evidence That Actually Decides These Disputes

Indian patent law does not allow Inventorship to be claimed solely based on an individual’s assertion rather than on evidence. The evidentiary framework under Sections 25 and 64 places the burden on the person who alleged the wrongful obtainment to establish that the invention or inventive contribution originated with them and was subsequently appropriated without their consent.

In R&D, Git commit histories, CAD revision logs, document change tracking, and similar records hold the evidentiary value. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (S. 63), electronic records can be used as evidence when they meet the necessary conditions, including proper certification for authenticity. This means a well-preserved, timestamped commit log is not just useful internally but can also be used as admissible evidence if the chain of custody is maintained.

Furthermore, emails, internal messages, meeting minutes, and dated project documentation capture the moment of conception in real time. A well-dated email is often the most convincing evidence available because it was created before anyone had a reason to change the story.

Moreover, because Section 20 requires the Controller to see a written assignment, agreement, or law before substituting or adding a party, a company’s internal invention disclosure forms and signed assignment deeds are not just HR paperwork. However, they are the primary documents a Controller will examine in any Section 20 dispute or Section 25/64 opposition.

Where These Disputes Actually Erupt In Indian R&D

Collaborative Research Such As Universities, CSIR Labs, And Industry Partnerships

India’s research landscape comprises a dense, wide network of CSIR laboratories, IITs, university departments, research institutes, sponsored projects, and more. These arrangements comprise institutions with different incentive structures, including, for example, a university interested in publication and grant renewal, a company interested in commercial exclusivity, and individual scientists interested in personal recognition. Because, as per the Indian patent law, genuine intellectual contribution is a prerequisite rather than institutional affiliation, disputes frequently arise when a sponsoring company’s employee is named alongside, or instead of, the university researcher who did the actual conceptual work or vice versa, or where a company later discovers that a university collaborator’s contribution was more central than the collaboration agreement anticipated.

Mixed Teams In Corporate And Start-Up R&D

India’s growing technology and pharmaceutical industries feature diverse teams comprising scientists, engineers, product managers, and business leaders from various fields. A product manager who defines market requirements, or an executive who authorises a research budget, is not thereby an inventor. Disputes commonly arise when hierarchy is mistaken for entitlement, a senior figure expects inclusion because of seniority or because they signed off on the project, not because they contributed to the inventive concept itself.

Outsourced And Contracted Development

India is a major exporter of contract R&D services and, increasingly, a market where Indian companies themselves outsource development work. This creates a distinctive risk profile. Where a foreign or domestic client engages an Indian R&D vendor, contract research organisation (CRO), or software development team, two questions arise, which must be addressed separately in the engagement agreement. Firstly, who is the inventor (governed by intellectual contribution), and secondly, who owns the resulting patent rights (governed entirely by the assignment clause).

Under the Indian Contract Act, an assignment must be clear, supported by consideration, and, for it to be recognised by the Controller under Section 20, ideally, to be reduced to writing that specifically identifies the invention. A vaguely worded or poorly drafted clause borrowed from a copyright context, without a specific patent assignment provision, frequently fails to achieve what the client assumed it would, leaving the contracted researcher or vendor’s employees in unresolved ownership limbo as potential co-inventors.

Preventive Drafting : Reducing Disputes Before They Start

Maintain An Invention Disclosure Process

It is required for researchers to submit a dated, specific disclosure immediately the moment they believe they have conceived something patentable. Such disclosures should clearly document the inventive contribution and provide sufficient detail to support any future request for recognition as an inventor under Section 28, rather than merely describing a broad research idea or direction.

Keep Contemporaneous Records As Routine Practice

Effective documentation practices should be incorporated into the day-to-day functioning of R&D teams. Comprehensive record-keeping should not be just treated as a last-minute exercise. Dated laboratory notebooks, witnessed research records, preserved version control histories, and timestamped internal communications should be monitored and maintained continuously from the very beginning, which ensures that reliable evidence of inventive contributions exists long before the drafting stage.

Draft Specific, Present- tense Assignment Clauses

Organisation while making Employment and contractor agreements, must ensure that agreement shall contain clear, patent-specific assignment provisions rather than relying on generic clauses These provisions should expressly provide that inventions conceived during the course of the engagement, developed using the organization’s resources, or falling within the agreed scope of work are assigned to the organization and are supported by clear consideration as required under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Use Section 20 Proactively, Not Just Defensively

Where a patent application involves joint applicants, formalise the entitlement and assignment documentation at an early stage so that, if any dispute arises in the future, the Controller has clear written evidence to act on under Section 20 rather than being asked to adjudicate a dispute with no paper trail, reducing the likelihood of prolonged disputes.

Build Collaboration And Outsourcing Agreements

University-industry collaborations, CRO engagements, and outsourced development contracts should explicitly distinguish between Inventorship and ownership. The factual question of intellectual contribution determines the Inventorship, while contractual arrangements govern the ownership. The agreement should specify clear IP assignment terms with the same rigour applied to core commercial terms.

Correct Errors Promptly Through The Statutory Mechanism

Whenever an error whatsoever is identified in the Inventorship, it should be addressed and resolved through appropriate statutory mechanisms, such as a correction request under Section 28 or a substitution application under Section 20, rather than allowing a known defect to remain latent until it is raised, which can be exploited later as a ground for opposition or revocation.

Conclusion

Indian patent law asks a clear, evidence-based question: who made the real intellectual contribution to the invention, and can we back that up with reliable evidence? Additionally, can this be integrated into a clear procedure that allows the issue to be addressed before granting a patent, after the grant, and at any time later through revocation or as a defense against infringement? This layered approach is why R&D teams cannot view Inventorship as just a formality, something to be settled at filing and then forgotten. Therefore, research organisations and innovative businesses need to recognise Inventorship as a vital part of their intellectual property management.

Author:- Anmol Pandey, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

Reference

1. Indian Patents Act, 1970, Act No. 39 of 1970 (India).
2. V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim vs Alfred Schafraneck And Ors, 1958
3. Shining Industries and Anr. vs Shri Krishna Industries, 1974, AIR 1975 All 231
4. How is patent ownership initially determined? – BlueIron IP. https://blueironip.com/ufaqs/how-is-patent-ownership-initially-determined/