The feedback recently received by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) on its draft guidelines for Computer Related Inventions mainly revolve around the following issues
- Section 3(k): the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the draft guidelines have been viewed as unduly 'restrictive', especially with regard to the meaning of 'computer programs per se'. Comments have also highlighted the lack of examples of patentable computer programs.
- Hardware innovations: the feedback suggests the need for the guidelines to particularly explain the level of technical contribution of the hardware for it to be patentable. Requests were also made for illustrations to explain to what extent the characteristics of hardware should be specifically disclosed.
- Business methods: the exclusion of this subject matter from patentability have been appreciated in the comments, however requests have been made for an explanation that would help determine whether the claimed invention is a business method or not.
- TRIPs obligation: the comments have also raised some concerns regarding India's international trade obligations, including Article 27 of the TRIPs. It was argued that allowing for a restrictive approach to computer programs would amount to 'discrimination in the field of technology'.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
