Nippon Steel Corporation Vs. The Controller of Patents

Nippon Steel Corporation filed a patent application in India on 01.07.2021 for a high-strength steel sheet invention involving four employee-inventors, one of whom, Kohichi Sano, had passed away before filing. The company submitted Form 1 signed by the three living inventors, a declaration referencing internal Basic Regulations assigning employee inventions to the company, and later an employment agreement of the deceased inventor. The Controller refused the application vide order dated 27.11.2024, holding that the employment agreement and declaration did not constitute sufficient proof of right under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act, particularly since the inventor was deceased and no assignment from his legal representative or death certificate was filed. On appeal, the Delhi High Court examined the documents, distinguished Section 68 (applicable only to granted patents), and held that the duly executed employment agreement combined with the declaration and corporate policy sufficiently established the company's right as assignee under Section 6(1)(b) read with Section 7(2), especially given consistent acceptance of identical documents in six prior granted patents with the same inventors. The Court set aside the refusal order and directed further examination for grant.

• An employment agreement executed by an employee-inventor, when read with a declaration and internal corporate regulations providing for automatic assignment of inventions conceived during employment, constitutes sufficient “proof of the right” under Section 7(2) of the Patents Act, 1970 to enable the employer-assignee to file a patent application (Paras 42–47).
• Section 68 of the Patents Act, 1970 applies only to assignment of a granted patent and not to assignment of the right to apply for a patent before grant (Para 38).
• Section 6(1)(c) requiring assignment from the legal representative of a deceased person has no application where the employer establishes its right as assignee under Section 6(1)(b) through pre-existing employment terms vesting rights in the employer (Paras 14, 40–42).
• Procedural requirements under the Patents Act are intended to advance justice and not to defeat substantive rights where sufficient documentary evidence of ownership exists (Paras 48–50).

Case Title: Nippon Steel Corporation Vs. The Controller of Patents Order Date: 24.12.2025 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2025 Neutral Citation: Not available in the provided judgment Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] [Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]