Identifying the correct applicant is one of the most important decisions at the time of filing a patent in India. Under the Patents Act, 1970, inventorship and entitlement to apply are distinct concepts. Misidentifying either can create validity issues, ownership disputes, and procedural objections that are costly and time-consuming to resolve.
The Statutory Structure: Sections 6 and 7
Sections 6 and 7 of the Patents Act, 1970 set out who may apply for a patent in India. There are three categories of eligible applicants:
- the true and first inventor,
- the assignee of the inventor, or
- the legal representative of a deceased inventor.
Inventorship under the Act requires a person who actually “devises” the invention, so the inventor must always be a natural person. An applicant, however, may be an individual or a legal entity, provided entitlement is properly established. When the applicant is not the inventor, the Act requires a proof of right to accompany or follow the application.
Once the application is filed, the applicant becomes the eventual patentee, with exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Act.
Inventorship and applicant status are not the same thing. The inventor must always be a natural person. The applicant can be an individual, a company, a startup, or any other legal entity, but only if entitlement is properly documented.
The Three Applicant Categories
In practice, three structures account for the overwhelming majority of Indian patent filings. Each is suited to a different ownership and commercialisation scenario.
1. Natural Person (Inventor) as Applicant
Who files: The inventor files in their own name.
Structure: No assignment required. The inventor holds the patent directly as an individual, with all rights under Section 48 vesting personally.
Best for: Independent inventors who own their invention entirely, intend to retain full personal control, and plan to license or sell rights later without involving a corporate vehicle.
2. Company / Start-up / MSME as Applicant
Who files: The entity files as applicant; the individual inventor remains named as inventor.
Structure: The inventor assigns rights to the entity, or the entity demonstrates proof of right, before or at the time of filing. The business holds and manages the IP asset. The inventor remains named but holds no ownership rights in the patent.
Best for: Inventions developed using organisational resources, inventions intended to be commercialised by the entity, and situations where the business needs to hold enforceable IP for investor, licensing, or enforcement purposes.
3. Joint Applicants
Who files: More than one party files as co-applicants, with one or more inventors named separately or as part of the applicant group.
Structure: Ownership is contractually shared between the joint applicants. Each applicant’s entitlement must be established. Proof of right or assignment documentation must reflect the agreed ownership split.
Best for: Collaborative research and development projects, early-stage commercialisation arrangements where more than one party has a defined contractual stake, and joint ventures.
How These Choices Play Out in Practice
The table below maps common commercial and research situations to the appropriate inventor and applicant structure.
| Situation | Inventor | Applicant |
| Employee invention | Employee (always the natural person who devised the invention) | Employer entity, on the basis of an assignment from the employee, ensuring the organisation holds enforceable rights. |
| Founder-led startup | Founder (natural person) | Founder personally, or the startup entity on the basis of assignment from the founder. Determined by whether the technology will be commercialised through the company. |
| Collaborative R&D | All natural persons who contributed to the inventive concept | Joint applicants, with ownership proportions and entitlement documented contractually before or at filing. |
| Independent inventor, licensing intended | The inventor | The inventor in their own name, with the option to assign or license rights to a third party at a later stage. |
| Contract research for a client | The researcher or R&D team (natural persons) | The client entity, if the contract specifies that IP developed under it vests in the client. Proof of right required. |
Why the Selection Matters
Choosing the wrong applicant is not a minor procedural error. It can affect the validity of the patent, the enforceability of the rights, the cost of the process, and the credibility of the IP in commercial transactions.
| Fees | Different applicant categories attract different official fees. Startups and small entities pay reduced fees. Incorrectly classifying the applicant can result in underpayment, objections, and additional cost to correct. |
| Ownership | The applicant is treated as the legal owner of the eventual patent. Naming the wrong person or entity creates messy ownership that weakens enforceability and complicates licensing, assignment, and investment discussions. |
| Business credibility | Investors, acquirers, and licensees conduct IP due diligence. Clean, properly documented ownership from the outset is essential to establishing credibility and avoiding deal delays or renegotiations. |
| Correctians | Mistakes in applicant identity can be corrected under the Patents Act, but corrections require time, supporting documentation, and procedural steps that can raise questions about the validity and provenance of the original application. |
Key Practical Points
- Always identify the true and first inventor correctly and separately from the applicant, even where the inventor and applicant are the same natural person.
- Where the applicant is not the inventor, have the assignment or proof of right in place before or at the time of filing. Do not file without it and attempt to regularise later.
- Where the invention was developed by an employee in the course of employment, confirm that the employment contract includes a clear IP assignment clause vesting invention rights in the employer before relying on the employer as applicant.
- For joint applicants, document the agreed ownership proportions and entitlement basis in a written agreement before filing. The Act permits joint applicants but does not resolve undocumented ownership disputes.
- Verify the applicable fee category for the applicant type before filing. Startups and MSMEs must meet the relevant definitions at the time of filing to qualify for reduced fees.
Conclusion
Choosing the right applicant is not a formality. It shapes who owns, controls, and benefits from the patent for its entire term. Understanding the distinction between inventor and applicant, using the correct applicant category, and documenting proof of right from the outset reduces future disputes and builds a cleaner, more credible IP position, both legally and commercially.
The decision made at filing is the foundation on which all subsequent licensing, enforcement, assignment, and investment decisions rest. Getting it right at the start is significantly less costly than correcting it after the fact.
Governing Law
Patents Act, 1970: Section 6, Section 7, Section 48 | Patent Rules, 2003 | Indian Contract Act, 1872 (assignment and proof of right)
