Introduction

This article is part 2 of our multi-blog series on the analysis of the Draft Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. Part 1 of the series discusses the new definitions and terms introduced in the Guidelines, and can be read here.

On March 25, 2025, the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) released Draft Revised Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. The 2017 Guidelines have undergone significant changes to bring more clarity, precision, and legal alignment to the way CRI patents would be handled in India. By integrating judicial rulings into the guidelines, the new (draft) CRI guidelines become not only more technically sound but also legally robust, giving applicants clearer grounds on which, they can base their patent applications.

In this article, we discuss the judgements that have been referred to in the Guidelines, and how these judgements shape(d) the treatment of CRIs in India.

Background – Legal framework for CRI Patentability in India

The patentability of CRIs in India is governed by the Patents Act, 1970, particularly Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3, along with judicial interpretations that have shaped their application over the years. These requirements apply uniformly across all technologies, including CRIs.

Section 3(k) explicitly excludes certain CRIs from patentability, barring patents on “mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, and computer programs per se.” The word “per se” (meaning “by itself”) was introduced in the 2002 Amendment to emphasize that, while mere software or abstract algorithms are not patentable, software that indicates a technical effect or solves a technical problem in combination with hardware may be patentable. This distinction is crucial—it prevents the patenting of mere code while allowing protection for innovations that enhance system functionality, security, or efficiency.

Judicial Precedents that have Shaped CRI Jurisprudence

In the Draft CRI Guidelines of 2025, numerous judicial interpretations have been provided to understand the extent, meaning and legislative intent of Section 3(k) of the Act. These interpretations have also contributed to the evolution of jurisprudence regarding CRIs. Some are mentioned below:

1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors held, “around the world, patent office’s evaluate patent applications in this area of innovation based on whether the invention has a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution.” If the invention shows a clear benefit or improvement in technology, it can be granted a patent, even if it is related to a computer program.

2. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs stated, “In the present matter, the [fact that the] claimed invention involves a set of algorithms executed in a pre-defined sequential manner on a conventional computing device does not necessarily imply that it lacks a technical effect or contribution. If the subject matter is implemented on a general-purpose computer but results in a technical effect that improves the computer system’s functionality and effectiveness, the claimed invention cannot be rejected on non-patentability as “computer program per se”.

3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of OpenTV Inc v. The Controller of Patents and Designs held, “the exclusion of business methods from patentability is absolute and not limited by the term “per se,” unlike in the case of computer programs. The bar in India to grant of business method is an “absolute bar without analyzing issues relating to technical effect, implementation, technical advancement or technical contribution. It is immaterial whether a computer program is used in the implementation of the invention. To determine whether an invention is a business method or not, the following aspects are3 to be considered: Firstly, it must consider whether the patent application addresses a business or administrative problem and provides a solution for the same. Secondly, whether the invention is primarily for enabling conduct or administration of a particular business i.e. sale or purchase of goods & services and purpose of the invention is for claiming exclusivity or monopoly over a manner of doing business. Lastly, whether the invention relates to a method of sale or purchase of goods or services is in fact a computer program that exhibits technical advancement or produces a technical effect.”

4. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Design held, “in case the application is related to computer invention, it needs to be evaluated if the invention is related to “technical effect” or “technical contribution”. Also, the need for new hardware is a stricter requirement that has no legal basis.”

5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs held, “in the case of inventions that involve computer programs, to overcome the limitations set by Section 3(k) of the Act, a patent holder must show that the overall method and system described in the patent application, when used in a general-purpose computer, provides a specific and credible technical effect or improvement beyond typical computing processes. Therefore, the inventive contribution of a patent should not only enhance the system’s functionality but also achieve a clear and innovative technical advantage that is different from the standard operations expected from such systems.”

6. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs held, “even if the claimed invention involves a computer program and it leads to a technical effect that enhances the system’s performance and effectiveness (having an impact on hardware), or if it offers a technical solution to a technical problem and is not restricted to a specific application or data set, it can overcome the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.”

7. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs held, “A ‘technical effect’ is what connects an input to the processor. If a clever input system or method enables the processor to produce outputs and computations more efficiently and quickly, then, in the Court’s view, that is considered ‘technical.’ A ‘technical effect’ isn’t just about hardware changes or tweaks. If an innovative input, like a program, allows the hardware to process outputs faster and it qualifies as a ‘technical effect.’ This means that a well-designed innovative input—whether it’s a process, system, or method—that enhances the processor’s computational ability definitely results in a ‘technical effect’ that goes beyond just the normal ‘user interface.”

8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs held, “Algorithm alone are excluded unless they show some technical effect and technical implementation. i.e., if the algorithm’s instructions are implemented through computer software designed for this purpose and result in a technical effect or technical contribution, then the relevant test for computer software can be applied, and patentability can be evaluated.”

Authors’ Analysis of the Guidelines and Conclusion

The Draft CRI Guidelines, 2025 mark a notable shift in India’s approach to software patentability. Where the 2017 Guidelines, created uncertainty—especially for innovators in AI, ML, and other digital technologies—the 2025 draft offers a more structured and legally grounded approach.

A key improvement is the formal integration of judicial interpretation. Courts have consistently clarified that inventions involving computer programs can be patentable if they demonstrate a technical effect or technical contribution. The Guidelines now echo this position, reinforcing that mere implementation on a general-purpose computer is not, by itself, grounds for rejection. This alignment between the judiciary and the patent office adds much-needed consistency to CRI examination.

At the same time, the Guidelines reiterate that business methods remain categorically excluded, regardless of technical implementation. Similarly, judgments like Ab Initio (supra) and Blackberry (supra) reinforce that algorithms and software may qualify, but only when they go beyond abstract ideas and deliver real world technical advancements.

Overall, the 2025 Guidelines reflect a more pragmatic, technology-aware, and applicant-oriented framework. If implemented effectively, these Guidelines have the potential to improve both the quality and predictability of CRI examination, fostering a more innovation-friendly patent environment in India.