Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Acts 1970 lays down that a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms is not patentable. Similar acts are in place in the UK (Section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and in EPC (Article 52(2) and 52(3) of EPC), placing restrictions on the patentability of computer related inventions. In the USA, judicial exceptions exist but there are no statutory restrictions. The exceptions include abstract ideas such as mathematical formula or equation, natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Indian Patent office adopted a stringent approach for the grant of patents in respect of computer related inventions. A number of the court cases have subsequently shed light on some of the related aspects. In order to lend further clarity to CRIs, two sets of guidelines were issued by the Indian Patent Office over a period of time, i.e., Guidelines for examination of CRI (2013) which was subsequently revised in 2017. The documents provide guidelines to the examiners of the patent office but are not statutory in nature. In order to foster uniformity and consistency, the Indian Patent office has come out with another draft of examination of CRIs (2025) in the month of March 2025, and has requested comments on the same.
A gist of the draft of the Guidelines for examination of CRIs – 2025 is given hereunder:
- a) Patentability Criteria
- CRIs that demonstrate a technical effect or contribute to a technical advancement may be considered for grant of a patent.
- The document defines “technical effect” as improvements in efficiency, performance, or functionality of hardware.
- The assessment follows global best practices, aligning with EPO and USPTO approaches.
- b) Examination Guidelines
The new framework provides a three-step test:
- Identify the actual contribution – whether it lies in a software program or an inventive technical solution.
- Assess technical effect and advancement – if the invention enhances hardware performance, security, or efficiency.
- Determine industrial applicability – ensuring the invention is not just an abstract idea.
The guidelines also introduce examples of acceptable and non-acceptable CRIs to provide clarity.
- c) AI & Emerging Tech Considerations
- Recognizes Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), blockchain, and IoT as key areas of innovation.
- CRIs involving AI/ML are assessed on their technical contributions, rather than just mathematical models or abstract theories.
- AI-based innovations that integrate with hardware or demonstrate a tangible technical effect could be patentable.
- d) Legal Precedents & Case Studies
- The guidelines cite Indian and international case law to provide clarity on CRI examination.
- Key Indian judgments reaffirm that software-only solutions remain non-patentable, while hardware-integrated CRIs may be considered.
- Precedents from EPO (Europe) and USPTO (USA) are referenced to show global convergence on CRI assessment.
- Specific case studies illustrate past rulings where CRIs were granted or rejected, helping applicants understand how examiners interpret the law.
The intent of the draft of the Guidelines issued clearly reveals ensuring harmony with the related laws of the other jurisdictions.