INTRODUCTION
The Indian innovation ecosystem is experiencing a remarkable transition, marked by the rapid growth of computer-implemented innovation, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and data-led automation. Distinctions between software and hardware are diminishing, and differentiating a computer program in and of itself from a patently contributing invention is becoming more difficult. The Indian Patent Office (IPO) has, occasionally, released and updated its Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI Guidelines) due to this new paradigm.[1]
The CRI Guidelines are completely reformed as of 2025. It distills years of jurisprudence, examiner practice, and policy discussions regarding patent protection for software inventions.
The Guidelines are intended to align India’s strategy with international norms while also guarding against the monopolisation of abstract algorithms. This blog examines the legal framework applicable to CRIs, discusses its court-based development, and offers drafting techniques that practitioners may employ to convert “code” into defensible “claims” as to the contours of Indian patent law.
STATUTORY CONTEXT: SECTION 3(K) AND ITS INTERPRETATION
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, is the statute that forms the base of CRI jurisprudence, which excludes from patentable subject matter “a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithm”.[2] The legislative intention was to block the grant of monopoly rights for abstract ideas or mathematical formulae. However, the qualifier ‘per se’, which was inserted as part of the 2002 Amendment, allowed for some room for interpretation with respect to inventions that utilize software as part of a broader technical system.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the 2001 Amendment had noted that the term ‘per se’ was intended to permit “embedded computer programs or those having technical application in industry,” to be patentable.[3] Accordingly, the IPO has consistently reasoned that software inventions will not be caught by the Section 3(k) exclusion, where the software shows a technical effect or technical contribution.[4]
CHANGES TO THE CRI GUIDANCE
- Initial versions (2013-2017)
The CRI Guidance that first appeared in 2013 sought to achieve procedural consistency but was often unhelpfully vague. In the 2016 version of the Guidance, there was the controversial introduction of a ‘three-step test’ aimed at determining whether or not it is proper to conclude that the claim is directed to a mathematical method,[5] a business method or a computer program per se. The IPO did respond to feedback from the industry about these steps, including withdrawing the ‘three-step test’, and in 2017 provided a simplified version of the Guidance, which reinforced a focus on the substance of the invention rather than the form of the claim.
- Towards Technical Effect (2021-2025)
The 2021 Guidance brought the IPO’s Guidance in closer alignment with the legal reasoning by encouraging examiners to assess whether the invention had a technical advancement compared to the prior art. The guidance from 2025 incorporates this standard and provides an explicit identification of examples of technical effects, such as: Improved performance or speed of computer hardware, increased security of data or amount of data compression, improved efficiency of inference or training of machine learning models, improved design of human/machine interactions or interfaces, and, reduced use of computational resources.[6]
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN CRI JURISPRUDENCE
Judicial interpretation of Section 3(k) has progressively delineated the contours of patentability in computer-related inventions.
- Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867)[7]
The Delhi High Court in this case stated that an invention demonstrating a technical effect or technical contribution cannot be refused patentability under Section 3(k) simply because it was implemented through software. The Court stated, “the progress lies not in the source code itself, but in the technological process realized.” In effect, the decision treated the phrase computer program per se as a gateway rather than a blockage.
- Yahoo Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2011)[8]
The Court stated that the claims must make it clear that “the patent disclosure leads to a technical effect, in the form of a novel hardware or process,” and cannot be limited to a simple set of computational steps.
- Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents (2023 Del HC)[9]
In addressing the post-Ferid Allani principles, the Court instructed the IPO to assess claims based on technical contribution (potentially unifying clause relates to ineligible subject matter), not their textual resemblance to excluded subject matter.
These case law developments form the basis for the 2025 Guidelines and provide doctrinal support to the shift of CRI examination from form to function.
DRAFTING PATENT APPLICATION UNDER THE 2025 CRI RULES
- Defining The Technical Problem And Contribution
Clearly define a technical problem and a technical solution. Examiners will frequently use a problem-solution type of analysis, usually similar to that used by the European Patent Office (EPO)[10].
- Incorporating Hardware Elements
Although software is the conceptual basis of many inventions, the requirement for hardware integration obligates an operational relationship with hardware. No need for proprietary hardware; the requirement for hardware integration is simply that the claimed method demonstrates that it operates using identifiable physical components.
- Avoiding Business Abstractions
The 2025 Guidelines confirm that computer-implemented business methods are still unpatentable unless accompanied by a ‘distinct technical effect’. For example, a claim that prime lends approval or varying prices is not operatively distinct; without emphasizing an improvement or adding technology to the computer processing element, it will result in a GIA type of rejection. A loan approval or price prediction system, for instance, that is hosted on a cloud-based server having an improved data-compression architecture[11], that checks and gives indications on the beginning loan process element, may cross over into patentable territory.
- Database Instruction For Technical Effect
To enhance the strength of a technical contribution, the specification should include experimental data, architecture diagrams, performance data metrics, etc[12]. The use of demonstrated benchmarks, e.g., percentage increases or decreases, all work in aiding the Examiner in the determination that the invention does have a technical effect.
- Preparing Claims With Exactness
Claims should ensure the inventive step without being abstract in their treatment. Claims in multiple categories, methods, and computer-readable mediums are recommended to obtain maximum protection, but must still be interrelated and not simply recast of one another[13].
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
While India’s structure is unique, in alignment with global practice, the European Patent Office (EPO) employs the requirement of ‘technical character’ under Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, while the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies the Alice/Mayo two-step test[14] to determine if an innovation employs an abstract idea. The IPO’s Guidelines for 2025 bridge these ideologies by insisting on a demonstrable technical effect while maintaining coercive statutes under Section 3(k).
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE THE IPO
Patent practitioners should be aware that the 2025 Guidelines give examiners the ability to:
Request any additional documentation that shows hardware dependence or technical If the claims do not clearly establish a connection between the activities of the claim and an actual physical implementation, the application will likely be denied. Ask for clarification when the claim of the algorithm has the potential of falling within ‘mathematical method’ exclusions[15].
When the Applications are being discussed at a hearing, there can be persuasive value from judicial precedents, including Ferid Allani and Microsoft Technology Licensing, for convincing the Controller of patent eligibility[16].
IMPLICATIONS FOR INNOVATORS AND PRACTITIONERS
The CRI Guidelines of 2025 demonstrate a new maturity of India’s patent system. For innovators, the focus on technological advancement, rather than mere aesthetic repackaging of software utilities, will create a demand for real R&D investment. Ultimately, the success of a CRI application becomes increasingly dependent on more than novelty or an inventive step.
CONCLUSION
Under the IPO’s CRI framework, the transition from code to claim expresses the delicate tension between innovator and excluded party. In conclusion, software patents in India are no longer a battle of semantics, but fundamentally a review of technology. The drafter’s artistry lies in writing claims that serve to either describe the innovation or otherwise provide evidence of invention. Hence, the future of the CRI patenting in India lies with those made able to span the normative divide from code, to claim-algorithmic, to physical.
Author(s) Name: Abhinav Manchanda (UILS, Chandigarh University ,Mohali(Punjab))
References:
[1] Indian Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (2025)
[2] Patents Act 1970, s 3(k)
[3] Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999, Report (2001)
[4] Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (2023), ch 08
[5] Indian Patent Office, CRI Guidelines 2016 (withdrawn)
[6] Indian Patent Office, CRI Guidelines 2025, para 4.2
[7] Ferid Allani v Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867
[8] Yahoo Inc v Controller of Patents (2011) IPAB Order No 45 of 2011
[9] Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v Assistant Controller of Patents 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3985
[10] European Patent Office, Problem–Solution Approach Guidelines (EPO, 2024)
[11] IPO CRI Guidelines 2025, para 6.1
[12] Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure (2023), ch 09
[13]ibid
[14] Alice Corp v CLS Bank International 573 US 208 (2014); European Patent Convention 1973, art 52
[15] IPO CRI Guidelines 2025, para 8
[16] Ferid Allani (n 7); Microsoft Technology Licensing (n 9)
