Summary: India's new 2025 CRI Guidelines clarify patentability for computer-related inventions, which will impact applications in cutting edge areas, including AI, ML, and Blockchain technology. The guidelines provide detailed frameworks and examples, and streamline the process for innovators and examiners alike, aligning with evolving global tech advancements.
The Indian Patent Office ("IPO") has issued New Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) – 2025 ("New Guidelines") on July 29, 2025. The New Guidelines aim to provide clarity, consistency, and predictability in the patent examination for CRIs and are replete with illustrative examples.
It may be noted that the New Guidelines do not constitute rule making, and if any conflict arises with the Patents Act, 1970 ("the Act"), or the Patents Rules, 2003 ("the Rules"), the Act and Rules will prevail. The guidelines themselves are also subject to revision from time to time, based on judicial interpretation, statutory amendments, and stakeholder inputs.
Of key note is that purely abstract ideas, algorithms lacking technical application, and business strategies devoid of technical features continue to be non-patentable. Certain other aspects of CRIs have been addressed in the New Guidelines, including the examination process, exclusions and claims, which are summarised below.
Systematic Approach to Patent Examination
The examination procedure for patent applications relating to CRIs is the same as that for other inventions regarding novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, sufficiency of disclosure, clarity, definitiveness, etc. Additionally, the New Guidelines outline a structured framework for assessing patentability criteria as follows:
- Novelty: A comprehensive seven-step "Seven Stambhas Approach" is provided, involving detailed claim analysis, prior art review, and identification of material differences for assessing novelty.
- Inventive Step: The New Guidelines continue to rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd. ( (AIR 1982 SC 1444) and the Delhi High Court's decision in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. vs Cipla Ltd.(Decision dated 7 September, 2012, in CS (OS) No.89/2008 and C.C. 52/2008), for assessing inventiveness using the five-step analysis approach, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd. (Decision dated 28 March 2024 in CS(COMM) 65/2016).
- Sufficiency of Disclosure: The applicant must
describe "what" the invention is and "how" it
will be implemented.
- To satisfy the "what" criterion, for hardware-based inventions, the patent specification must describe every feature with appropriate illustrative drawings. For methods, it should clearly outline each step, using flowcharts or similar tools, to distinguish the invention from prior art. In all cases, the specification must detail the relationships and connectivity between components, as well as the invention's desired output or intermediate steps.
- To fulfil the "how" requirement, the applicant must also disclose the best-known technique for implementing the invention.
Assessment of Exclusions Under Section 3(k) of the Act
The New Guidelines provide a pragmatic, stepwise methodology to evaluate the exclusions under Section 3(k) of the Act:
- Mathematical Methods: Pure mathematical computations or formulas in isolation are excluded. However, mathematical steps incorporated into a broader technical process that yields tangible results are patentable.
- Business Methods: Pure business schemes or administrative methods are excluded, but a technical improvement/solution to an underlying system or process, aimed at refining operational framework or infrastructure, and using business context only as a constraint to define the scope of the invention, may qualify for protection.
- Algorithms: Abstract instructions or sequences lacking specific technical application are excluded. Algorithms with clear technical implementation and capable of solving real-world problems are potentially patentable.
- Computer Programme per se: Claims solely directed to computer programs, routines, storage media with instructions, or databases are excluded from patentability under Section 3(k). However, innovations that produce a technical effect beyond incidental impacts on underlying hardware – such as enhancing system efficiency, controlling external devices, or improving security – are patentable.
The New Guidelines clarify that allowability under Section 3(k) does not require 'Novel Hardware', but a technical solution to a technical problem via technical means, achieving technical effects.
Form and Substance of Claims
Claims that substantively fall within the excluded categories are deemed non-patentable, irrespective of their form, i.e., method, apparatus, system, device, or computer program product. Thus, claims will be assessed based on the inherent substance of the invention, rather than its articulation.
The New Guidelines clarify that Section 3(k) does not limit that only system or only method claims are to be granted in a computer related patent application. If the specification has support in description, both sets of method as well as system claims may be allowed even if they are claimed as independent claims.
The New Guidelines are accompanied by a non-exhaustive indicative list of examples pertaining to allowable/non-allowable method as well as system claims vis-à-vis section 3(k), which might be useful when evaluating drafting and prosecution strategies going forward.
Examination of Inventions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), Blockchain, Quantum Computing
The New Guidelines dedicate a specific section to technologies related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), Blockchain, and Quantum Computing. They clarify that abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas or theoretical constructs, are not patentable due to their lack of practical application. However, when these principles are transformed into tangible, real-world applications, they may become patentable.
Further, the New Guidelines acknowledge the complexities of these technologies, including pattern classification, data segmentation, and predictive analytics, which pose unique challenges regarding sufficiency of disclosure and evaluation under Section 3(k) of the Act. Illustrative examples offer guidance on sufficiency of disclosure and aspects that may exempt an invention from exclusion under Section 3(k).
Inventorship in AI-Related Inventions
The New Guidelines classify AI-related inventions into AI-generated and AI-assisted inventions. It is clarified that AI-generated inventions i.e., those autonomously created by AI systems are currently not patentable, as AI cannot be considered a 'person' capable of being the true and first inventor under the Act. Conversely, AI-assisted inventions, where AI tools aid human inventors, are not inherently excluded from patentability under Section 3(k), provided they meet the standard patentability criteria and demonstrate a technical effect through tangible inventive applications.
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.
