Implication of Revised CRI Guidelines for Emerging Technologies

Introduction

The release of the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), 2025, by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) marks a significant shift in the Indian patent landscape. These guidelines are designed to bring greater clarity and legal alignment in examining CRI applications, particularly under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. By integrating judicial precedents, the Guidelines move beyond abstract interpretation and create a structured framework that balances innovation with statutory exclusions.

This article focuses on two critical aspects—business methods and the emerging debate on artificial intelligence as an inventor—while analyzing their treatment under the revised guidelines.

Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act

Section 3(k) explicitly excludes mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs per se, and algorithms from patentability. The rationale behind this provision is to prevent monopolies over abstract ideas and intellectual exercises that lack real technical application. However, over time, judicial pronouncements have clarified that if such elements contribute to a genuine technical effect or technical advancement, they may be considered patentable when embedded within a larger system. The CRI Guidelines, 2025, attempt to categorize this principle, emphasizing substance over form while carefully applying judicial interpretation to examination practice with inclusion of examples.

Sufficiency of Disclosure: A Cornerstone in CRI Examination

A central feature of the revised guidelines is the emphasis on sufficiency of disclosure. The patent system is built on the principle of quid pro quo, granting exclusive rights in exchange for full disclosure of the invention. For CRIs, where abstract algorithms and theoretical constructs are common, this requirement becomes critical. To meet the sufficiency of disclosure requirement, applications must provide detailed information on “what” the invention is and “how” to perform it.

“What” Requirement: For apparatus/system/device, i.e., hardware-based inventions, each and every component of the invention along with their working relationship should be described with suitable illustrative drawings. For “method”, the necessary sequence of steps with the flowcharts and implementation mechanism should be described.
“How” Requirement: The best mode of performing and/or use of the invention shall be described with suitable illustrations. Description should clearly explain both functionality and the implementation of the invention.

In the absence of these detailed disclosures, the claimed invention risks rejection for being too abstract. By insisting on detailed, reproducible disclosures, the guidelines prevent speculative or futuristic claims from slipping through, ensuring that only practical and implementable solutions receive protection.

To meet this standard, a CRI disclosure should provide:

A clear system architecture;
Details of the datasets used, including their nature and characteristics;
The implementation logic underlying the invention;
Relevant training and optimization parameters (in the case of AI/ML-based inventions); and
Evidence of technical effects supported by validation results.

In absence of these details, claims risk rejection under Section 3(k) for lack of sufficient technical disclosure, as they fail to rise above the level of abstract ideas and enter the domain of practical, patent-eligible innovation.

Business Methods under the Revised Guidelines

One of the most contested exclusions under Section 3(k) has been business methods. The 2017 Guidelines had already clarified that the mere presence of words such as “enterprise,” “business,” “business rules,” “supply-chain,” “order,” “sales,” “transactions,” “commerce,” “payment” etc., does not automatically render an invention a “business method.” In addition, the 2025 Guidelines also emphasize that references to business contexts like “profile matching,” “relationship matching,” “event planning,” “credit providing,” “employee scheduling,” “customer feedback analysis,” or “customer relationship management” do not automatically render an invention a “business method.” The allowability of such claims depends on the substance of the invention and its core contribution. The central question is whether the claim’s primary purpose is an organized administrative or commercial scheme, or whether it embodies a technical solution.

If the invention provides a technical improvement to a system or process enhancing operational frameworks/infrastructure and uses a business setting merely to define its scope, it will not be treated as a business method.

For example, a claim involves a bank’s method of calculating and applying a tiered service fee structure based on account balances and transaction volumes. At its core, this is a business method because it defines a financial strategy for revenue generation and customer management.

On the other hand, if a claim proposes a new cryptographic technique for securing online banking data transmissions, or a technical process that accelerates transaction processing by optimizing server data handling, the essence of the invention lies in technical advancement, not in conducting financial business. Such a claim would therefore not fall under the business method exclusion.

Similarly, consider the example of a platform for streaming television content that introduces new pricing or distribution models. Such an invention, even if implemented through sophisticated software, would be excluded because its essence lies in conducting a business activity. This reinforces the position that technical effect alone cannot rescue a business method from exclusion under Section 3(k). The Guidelines, therefore, provide a firmer judicial backing to examiners, ensuring consistent application of this exclusion.

Implications for Emerging Technologies

The CRI Guidelines 2025 have far-reaching implications for industries driven by emerging technologies such as AI, IoT, blockchain, and cloud computing. By reinforcing the necessity of technical effect and technical contribution, the guidelines draw a clear boundary between genuine technical innovation and abstract or commercial activities. While business methods face a stricter bar following OpenTV¹, inventions leveraging AI and software to deliver measurable improvements in system performance may find stronger footing for patent protection. The guidelines thus strike a balance between preventing monopolies on abstract ideas and encouraging meaningful technological advancement.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

AI and ML technologies are among the fastest growing areas of CRIs. Deep learning constructs such as neural networks and other frameworks are, in essence, mathematical constructs and thus excluded under Section 3(k). However, when applied to solve real-world problems, they may become patentable. A good example would be a system that digitizes handwritten medical prescriptions using deep learning. Such an invention must disclose training data, pre-processing techniques, network architecture, and validation accuracy. The technical effect in this case is the reduction of human errors and faster processing in healthcare, which moves the invention beyond an abstract algorithm.

Artificial Intelligence as an Inventor

While Section 3(k) has traditionally focused on excluding abstract computer-related subject matter, the rise of artificial intelligence has raised novel questions regarding inventorship. Globally, debates around cases like DABUS have sparked discussions on whether AI can be named as an inventor. Indian law does not currently recognize non-human inventors. The CRI Guidelines 2025 addressing this issue, has categorically specified that AI-generated inventions are not patentable since AI is not a legal person under the Act. However, AI-assisted inventions, where AI is used as a tool by human inventors, may qualify if they meet the criteria of novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and sufficient disclosure.

For instance, if AI system develops a new method for optimizing energy efficiency in wireless networks. The invention, if it demonstrates a clear technical effect such as reduced transmission loss or improved spectrum utilization, could qualify for patent protection under the Guidelines. However, the formal naming of the AI as the inventor would remain problematic under the current legal framework. Therefore, while the Guidelines advance the treatment of AI-related inventions by focusing on technical contribution, AI generated inventions have been deemed patent-ineligible unless there is legislative intervention in the future.

Conclusion

The CRI Guidelines 2025 bring much-needed clarity to the interpretation of Section 3(k), particularly concerning business methods and AI-related inventions. By grounding examination practices in judicial precedents, they provide a more reliable framework for both applicants and examiners. The revised CRI guidelines mark a significant step towards balancing innovation incentives and public interest. By drawing strict lines on business methods while opening room for AI, blockchain, and quantum computing with adequate disclosure, the Indian patent system strengthens its ability to handle next-generation technologies.