Computer Related Inventions Guidelines 2025– Overview

Introduction

Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) comprises inventions which involve the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and includes such inventions having one or more features of which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme(s)/algorithm.

Issues related to CRIs

As per Section 3(k) of the Indian patent Act 1970:

"(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer program or algorithms;"

The Patent Act provides no protection to mathematical or business methods or a computer program per se. Therefore, the patent office has been rejecting the software patent even if they are high on innovation.

Summary - CRI Guidelines 2025

For public review, feedback and comments, the Patent Office has officially released the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025. The following critical components of the CRI Guidelines are given below:

• Definition of key terms that play a role in determining patentability like Algorithm, Computer Programme per se, Computer, Computer Network, Data, Hardware and Secure System, etc.
• The Guidelines also reiterate various judicial interpretations, stating that algorithms and computer programs per se are excluded from patentability unless they demonstrate a "technical effect".
• The various jurisprudence highlighted in the draft guidelines showing how hon'ble courts have expressed their views while interpreting the extent, meaning and legislative intent with regard to provisions of section 3(k) are:
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ferid Allani vs. Union of India & Ors (2019);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs (2023);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Opentv Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs (2023);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents And Designs (2023);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs (2024)
  • Views of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs (2024);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs (2024);
  • Views of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs (2024).
• The Guidelines also provide stepwise Examination Procedure Related to CRI Applications:
  • It reiterates about the 'Seven Stambhas Approach' [Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd (2024)] for assessing novelty. The following steps of the approach are:
    • Understanding of the Claims of the Invention,
    • Identify Relevant Prior Art,
    • Analyse the Prior Art,
    • Determine Explicit and Implicit Disclosures,
    • Assessment material differences while considering the entire scope of the Claims,
    • Verifying Novelty in light of Comprehensive Scope and Specific Combination of Claimed Elements,
    • Documentation of the Analysis and Novelty Determination.
  • It reiterates about the "5-step analysis" approach [Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd] for Inventive Step determination. The following steps of the approach are:
    • Identify the "person skilled in the art";
    • Identify the relevant common general knowledge;
    • Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question;
    • Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited;
    • Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed.
  • In cases of patent application concerning CRIs, Sufficiency of Disclosure requirements are considered as fulfilled if the specification addresses the "What" and "How" requirements.
  • The Guidelines require AI-related patent applications to disclose specifics such as training data sources, model architectures (e.g., neural network layers), and learning algorithms. But fail to provide clear examples for AI-generated inventions, where the role of human intervention in algorithm design remains contentious.
  • The Guidelines require the disclosure of cryptographic techniques, consensus mechanisms, and data structures, ensuring that blockchain-related inventions meet the same enablement standards as other CRIs.
  • Guidelines require that an invention must show a "tangible technical effect," but they provide no objective test to measure this effect. For example, if an invention offers a technical solution to a technical problem, such as improving computer efficiency, but it is silent about the criteria for evaluating the said improvements in computing efficiency.

Conclusion

We can say that the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 is a much-needed attempt by the IPO to bring consistency to CRI patent examinations. However, the absence of well-defined criteria for assessing technical effects, AI, blockchain, cryptographic techniques and the lack of practical examples limit their effectiveness.

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.