Delhi HC Backs Substance Over Form: Employment Contracts Can Establish “Proof of Right” in Patent Filings

In C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2025, the Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 202117029591 filed by Nippon Steel Corporation for an invention titled “High-Strength Steel Sheet and Manufacturing Method of High-Strength Steel Sheet”. The Controller had rejected the application on the ground that “proof of right” was not established for one deceased inventor, invoking Sections 6(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 7(2) of the Patents Act to question Nippon Steel’s entitlement to apply despite the company’s internal IP regulations and employment agreement being on record.

​What this judgement clarifies on Patent ownership and filings

In its judgment dated 24 December 2025, the Court clarified how “proof of right” under Sections 6 and 7 of the Patents Act should be viewed when employee-inventors and internal IP frameworks are involved.

·         ​Employer–employee IP frameworks can be valid proof of right: The Court held that Nippon Steel’s Basic Regulations on Intellectual Property and the written employment agreement together were sufficient to demonstrate that IP created in the course of employment vested in the company, satisfying the “proof of right” requirement under Section 7(2). The Court rejected the Patent Office’s view that only a separate assignment or a specific clause naming the invention could establish ownership in such circumstances.

·         Section 6(1)(b), not 6(1)(c), governs in such cases: Since the employee–inventor’s rights already stood assigned to the employer under the internal IP regime, the company qualified as an “assignee of the true inventor” under Section 6(1)(b). The Court held that the provision on legal representatives of a deceased inventor under Section 6(1)(c) was inapplicable, even though one inventor had passed away before filing, because the rights had already vested in the employer.

·         Procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive IP rights: Emphasising that procedure is the handmaid of justice, the Court found that insisting on additional formalities despite clear contractual vesting of IP would unduly elevate form over substance. It also noted that six other patent applications with the same four inventors and the same proof-of-right documents had already been granted by the Patent Office, and a contrary approach here was unjustified.

​Why this judgement matters

This decision is a significant boost for R&D-driven businesses operating in India that rely on global IP policies and standard employment contracts to capture employee inventions. It confirms that well-documented employer–employee IP arrangements, read with corporate IP regulations, can validly support patent filings even when fresh inventor signatures or separate assignments are not feasible, so long as those documents clearly show how rights in employee inventions vest in the company.

NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION V. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2025

Read the judgement copy here.