Introduction

This article is part 3 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 Part 2 discusses the judgements that have been referred to in the Guidelines.

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 analyze the novelty and inventive step sections of the Draft CRI 2025 Guidelines

Novelty Determination in CRIs

According to Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) (hereinafter, “Act”), an “Invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In India similar to the US, an invention is said to lack novelty if and only if ALL its features, either explicitly or implicitly, are disclosed by one single prior art.

In the CRI 2017 Guidelines, no detailed procedure was given for the assessment of novelty of a CRI. However, the Draft 2025 Guidelines has a dedicated section for the assessment of novelty of CRIs according to the recent judgment of the Indian courts. Having said that, the Guidelines also state, “The determination of novelty in respect of CRIs is no different from any other field of invention.”

For assessment of novelty, the 2025 Guidelines rely on the 7-step approach proposed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on March 28, 2024, in the matter of Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) vs Lava International Ltd¹:

“When assessing the novelty of an invention, a judge or even a patent examiner ought to follow a systematic approach to ensure a thorough and unbiased analysis of the invention claimed and the prior art cited. Another important aspect of the test for assessment of novelty in an invention is to maintain a distinction between the test of novelty and test for inventive step or lack of obviousness. I am of the view that the following steps, which may be referred to as the ‘Seven Stambhas Approach’ serve as guiding Stambhas are referred to as columns or pillars in Indian Architecture principles and provide a clear framework for assessing novelty, reflecting the distinction between novelty and non-obviousness:

Understand of the Claims of the Invention – The determination of lack of novelty should begin with the understanding of the claims of the invention as it is the claims that define the boundaries of the invention and what the applicant considers as their novel contribution.
Identify Relevant Prior Art – Collect the prior art, including any public disclosure, publication, patent, or patent application that predates the filing date of the patent application which is relevant to the Claims of the patent.
Analyze the Prior Art – Conduct a detailed analysis of the identified prior art to ascertain its relevance to the claims of the invention. This step involves searching and documenting both the similarities and the differences, if any, between the claims of the invention and the text of the prior art. This step requires comparing the technical details and features of the prior art against those claimed in the invention.
Determine Explicit and Implicit Disclosures – Examine whether the prior art explicitly or implicitly discloses the same invention. Explicit disclosure means the prior art directly describes the invention claimed. Implicit disclosure refers to whether the prior art describes elements or aspects so similar to the claimed invention that a direct link can be drawn.
Assess Material Differences while considering the Entire Scope of the Claims – Identify the material differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, if any, such that a material difference would indicate that the claimed invention has not been disclosed in the prior art and, therefore, the invention, is novel.
Verify Novelty in light of Comprehensive Scope and Specific Combination of Claimed Elements – Evaluate novelty of the invention in light of the comprehensive scope of its claims, not just individual elements. The invention is novel only if the combination of claimed elements as a whole has not been previously disclosed.
Document the Analysis and Novelty Determination – Specify the finding of the examination of novelty, while providing a clear rationale for the said determination. The specific documentation must include references to specific sections of the prior art examined and a reasoning as to how the section affects the novelty of the claims and the inventive concept of the invention. Based on the analysis, issue a formal decision, if the invention or any of its claimed elements is found in the prior art, the invention is not novel. Conversely, if the invention is not disclosed by the prior art, it is considered novel.”

Apart from the above, the Guidelines provide that novelty is to be judged under various provisions of the Act and the Indian Patents Rules, 2003 (as amended) as well as the procedures laid out in chapter 08.03.02 of the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure.

Inventive Step Determination in CRIs

Under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, “inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Indian Patent Office’s stance on inventive step in 2025 Guidelines has not changed compared to the 2017 Guidelines, i.e., the rationale adopted for inventive step determination in the Draft 2025 Guidelines is the same as in the 2017 Guidelines. The Guidelines also state, “The determination of inventive step with regard to CRIs is carried out in like manner as in other categories of inventions.”

The 2025 Guidelines continue to rely on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd.² and Delhi High Court’s F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd.³ for the assessing inventiveness as per the 5-step analysis approach which was recently upheld in Ericsson (supra):

Identify the “person skilled in the art”, i.e., competent craftsman or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan;
Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person at the priority date;
Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the “state of the art” and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed;
Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of inventive ingenuity?

Our Analysis and Conclusion

The Draft CRI 2025 Guidelines mark a shift toward a more rigorous and jurisprudentially aligned framework for assessing novelty and inventive step. While the test for inventiveness remains the same, the introduction of the “Seven Stambhas Approach” to novelty assessment addresses a gap in the 2017 Guidelines, where novelty analysis was largely underdefined. By integrating judicial reasoning directly into the examination framework, the 2025 Guidelines elevate the standard for novelty determination and help ensure consistency across applications and examiners.

On the question of inventive step, the Draft Guidelines largely maintain the position adopted in the 2017 Guidelines. However, by reaffirming the applicability of Indian jurisprudence—particularly the 5-step test endorsed in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and more recently, the Ericsson judgment—the Guidelines provide much-needed continuity and clarity. The consistent application of this test ensures that CRI claims are not examined in a legal vacuum but are evaluated based on established principles of technical advancement, non-obviousness, and economic significance.

If adopted in their current form, the Draft CRI 2025 Guidelines are likely to improve examination quality, reduce subjectivity, and enhance applicant confidence—especially in an area that has long been marred by inconsistent interpretations and procedural uncertainty. Most importantly, they pave the way for a more transparent, predictable, and innovation-friendly patent regime for computer-related inventions in India.