The Indian Patent Office (IPO) released a new and highly detailed set of Guidelines for the Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) on July 29, 2025. These guidelines, which replace the 2017 version, are the result of a robust and transparent process that included two draft versions, public feedback, and discussions with stakeholders held in major Indian cities. This collaborative approach underscores the IPO's commitment to creating a clear and consistent framework for a critical and rapidly evolving area of innovation.
The release of these guidelines was much needed, given the recent establishment of IP Divisions in the Delhi, Madras, and Calcutta High Courts, which have been issuing landmark judgments that are fundamentally shaping the country's patent jurisprudence. These guidelines are a direct reflection of these new judicial principles, aiming to harmonise examination practice with judicial precedents.
Detailed Guidance on Legal Provisions
One of the most praiseworthy aspects of the new guidelines is their comprehensive and detailed guidance on legal provisions, particularly Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. This section, which excludes "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms" from patentability, has historically been a root cause of uncertainty for patenting of CRIs. The new guidelines align the interpretation of this section with recent and landmark judicial precedents, offering a clear and authoritative resource for all stakeholders.
This is a significant improvement over previous guidelines, as it not only provides IPO's Examiners and Controllers with a solid base for conducting examination of decisions and issuing well-reasoned orders, but it also offers practitioners and applicants a reliable benchmark for drafting and prosecuting patent applications for CRIs. The guidelines also provide well-defined terminology for CRI-related concepts by referencing case laws, relevant statutes, and reputable dictionaries, which further enhances clarity.
Dedicated Patentability Assessment Tests
The methodology for assessing patentability under these new guidelines is both structured and robust. The guidelines provide dedicated patentability assessment tests with flow charts for different excluded categories, such as mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, and computer programs per se. The prescribed tests are highly acceptable and well-suited for consistent application across diverse technical areas of CRIs. The inclusion of numerous examples of both patentable and non-patentable CRIs, supplemented with demonstrated application of the prescribed patentability assessment tests and detailed reasoning, significantly enhances the predictability and transparency of the examination process for CRIs in India.
Practical Examples to Illustrate "Technical Effect" and "Technical Advancement"
The new guidelines provide a thorough explanation and practical examples illustrating the concepts of "technical effect" and "technical advancement," thereby making it easier to demonstrate that an invention solves a technical problem rather than just a business or abstract one. For instance, aspects such as boosting internal system efficiency or functionality, governing external devices or physical processes, and concrete technical implementations can lead CRIs towards patentability. On the other hand, core exclusions, form of claim or other issues, and lack of technical effect are some aspects that can push CRIs towards non-patentability. Besides, the guidelines provide much-needed clarity on the allowability of both method and system claims for patentable CRIs, which facilitates comprehensive protection for inventions in this area.
Guidance on Novelty, Inventive Step, and Sufficiency of Disclosure for CRIs
For novelty, the guidelines explicitly reference the "Seven Stambhas Approach" suggested in the landmark case of Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd. This seven-step framework provides a systematic approach to analysing claims against prior art, moving beyond a simple comparison of features to a holistic assessment of the invention's contribution. Referring to the same landmark case, the guidelines adopt a five-step test for inventive step assessment consistent with international best practices, providing a clear and methodical process for evaluating the technical advancement and non-obviousness of an invention. Furthermore, the guidelines place a strong emphasis on sufficiency of disclosure, a critical requirement for complex CRIs.
Forward-Thinking Approach on Emerging Technologies
Another significant and forward-thinking aspect of the new guidelines is their dedicated focus on emerging technologies. The document provides a detailed analysis and specific guidance for patenting inventions in cutting-edge fields, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), quantum computing, and blockchain. Beyond simply explaining patentability, the guidelines use multiple examples to demonstrate how to meet the crucial requirement of "sufficiency of disclosure" for these complex technologies. This is a vital addition, as it directly addresses the unique challenges associated with describing and enabling such inventions. By providing a clear framework for evaluating patentability based on technical contribution and offering practical advice on fulfilling disclosure requirements, this proactive approach ensures that India's patent system remains relevant, adaptable, and supportive of innovation in the most dynamic and rapidly evolving sectors of the global economy.
Scope for Further Refinements
Despite these significant advancements, the new guidelines could have been more comprehensive in certain respects. The primary focus remains on Section 3(k), and they do not explicitly address objections that are frequently raised on CRIs under other relevant provisions of the Patents Act. Specifically, there is a missed opportunity to provide guidance on Sections 3(m), 3(n), and 3(o). For instance, objection under 3(m) is routinely raised for being "a mere scheme, rule, or method of performing mental acts or playing games" on CRIs not having structural features in claims. The exclusion under Section 3(n) for "presentation of information" often creates hurdles for CRI claims involving Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs).
Clear guidance on when GUI-related inventions (e.g., those that improve the efficiency of a system's interaction with a user) can be patentable would be highly beneficial, especially given that GUIs are not granted design protection in India. Similarly, clearer direction on how to navigate objections related to Section 3(o), excluding the topography of integrated circuits from patentability, would streamline the examination of semiconductor-related inventions given limited and not-so-effective protection under India's SICLD Act, 2000.
Furthermore, while the guidelines offer valuable insights into business methods, they could have benefited from an explicit incorporation of principles from landmark judgments like Priya Randolph vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs and Comviva Technologies Limited vs Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. These decisions have clarified that inventions with a genuine technical contribution should not be summarily excluded merely because they are related to a business method. Explicitly referencing these judgments would help ensure consistent examination practices, particularly for innovation in the booming Fintech sector in India.
A final point of refinement is the continued non-patentability of "Computer Readable Medium" (CRM) and "Computer Program Product" (CPP) claims. While this stance aligns with past practice, a re-evaluation of this policy could have been beneficial. Allowing patent protection for specific CRM/CPP implementations that demonstrate a technical contribution would align India with other advanced jurisdictions like the European Patent Office and the United States, thereby providing a stronger legal framework to combat software piracy in India.
Conclusion
Despite these potential areas for improvement, the 2025 guidelines mark a significant milestone, establishing a clear and forward-looking foundation that will foster innovation and support the growth of India's technology sector for years to come. The new CRI Guidelines, 2025, represent a positive step that projects India's commitment to a modern and effective intellectual property regime. The IPO's proactive approach in aligning examination practice with judicial precedents through a transparent and collaborative process is highly commendable and sets a new standard for setting patent examination guidelines. The detailed, structured, and example-driven CRI guidelines provide much-needed clarity and predictability, benefiting not only examiners and practitioners but also the vibrant community of innovators working on CRIs.
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.
