Introduction
This article is the final part of our multi-blog series on analyzing the Draft Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. Part 1 discusses the new definitions and terms introduced in the Guidelines, Part 2 discusses the judgments referred to in the Guidelines, Part 3 discusses the novelty and inventive step sections and Part 4 discusses the sufficiency of disclosure section.
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 focus specifically on how the Draft CRI 2025 Guidelines address the determination of excluded subject matter under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Changes Introduced by the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025
The CRI Guidelines 2017 emphasized examining the substance of claims rather than their form. However, in practice, examinations often leaned towards a form-over-substance approach, resulting in inconsistent treatment of computer-related inventions. This underscored the need for a clearer, court-aligned framework, now reflected in the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025.
While the 2017 Guidelines also categorized excluded subject matter into different groups, the Draft 2025 Guidelines deepen the analysis by grounding the treatment of each category in judicial interpretations. By integrating extensive case laws, the Draft 2025 Guidelines align more closely with judicial pronouncements rather than relying solely on isolated statutory interpretation.
Mathematical Methods
2017 Guidelines: Mathematical methods were excluded as abstract intellectual exercises, but using mathematical formulas in technical systems (e.g., encoding, encryption) could still support patentability.
Draft 2025 Guidelines: The 2025 Draft reinforces this view, citing Microsoft, which affirmed that mathematical methods per se remain excluded, but their application in technical systems may be patentable.
Business Methods
2017 Guidelines: Business methods were excluded if the substance of the invention related to commercial or financial transactions, but claims had to be examined as a whole. Presence of terms like “business” or “transaction” did not automatically result in exclusion.
Draft 2025 Guidelines: The Draft retains the 2017 approach but emphasizes, based on OpenTV, that the exclusion of business methods is absolute. The court clarified that even if a business method demonstrates technical effect or technical advancement, it remains unpatentable if its substance is a business activity.
Computer Programs per se
2017 Guidelines: Claims directed purely at computer programs (set of instructions, routines, storage mediums, etc.) were excluded. However, it was recognized that if a computer program was part of a larger invention contributing technically, it could still be patentable.
Draft 2025 Guidelines: The 2025 Guidelines reinforces this, citing Ferid Allani and Microsoft, to clarify that if a computer program results in a technical effect or technical contribution—such as improving system functionality or solving a technical problem—the invention may be patentable.
Algorithms
2017 Guidelines: Algorithms were broadly excluded as logical or computational methods, without further nuance.
Draft 2025 Guidelines: The Draft refines this by citing Microsoft (supra) and Blackberry. It confirms that pure algorithms remain excluded, but if implemented through software to achieve a technical effect, the invention may be considered patentable. The inventive contribution must lie in the implementation, not in the abstract algorithm itself.
Technical Effect and Technical Contribution
The cornerstone of the Draft 2025 approach is the emphasis on technical effect and technical contribution. To guide examination, the Draft Guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of what could possibly constitute a technical effect, including:
- Higher speed
- Reduced hard-disk access time
- More economical use of memory
- More efficient storage system
- More effective data compression techniques
- Better control of robotic arm
- Improved reception/transmission of a radio/electromagnetic/communication signal
- Secure data transmission
- Enhanced internet security protocols
- Real-time processing improvements in systems
The Guidelines caution that mere automation of a business method, presentation of information, or routine execution by a general-purpose computer does not constitute a technical effect. Thus, assessing technical effect remains crucial for distinguishing patentable CRI inventions from excluded subject matter.
Illustrative Examples: Patentable vs Non-Patentable Claims
The Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 provide examples to illustrate how technical effect and contribution determine patentability. Here are selected examples:
Patentable Examples
Two-Cookie Authentication Method (Example 1): The claim involves authenticating users at both the domain and sub-location levels using separate cookies. This layered security mechanism produces a technical effect by enhancing network authentication processes beyond conventional login systems.
Traffic Sign Detection Using CNN (Example 7): The invention applies convolutional neural networks to real-time image processing for detecting speed limit signs, improving vehicle safety systems. It produces a technical effect by solving a real-world technical problem.
Non-Patentable Examples
Media Gifting System (Example 1): The system automates the commercial act of selecting and gifting digital media. It lacks any technical contribution and remains purely a business method.
Database Trace Replay System (Example 5): The invention retrieves and replays database trace data but does not introduce any technical improvement to the database system itself. It remains a routine software operation without technical effect.
These examples are illustrative; actual examination must be based on the substance of the invention and the presence of a genuine technical effect or technical contribution.
Our Analysis and Conclusion
The Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 reinforce that patentability must depend on demonstrating a real technical contribution, not merely the use of technology. This focus will be critical in examining emerging technologies such as AI/ML, IoT, and blockchain, where inventions often lie at the intersection of abstract models and technical implementation. Applicants will need to clearly identify how their innovations solve specific technical problems or improve underlying systems. Claims that merely automate decision-making, data handling, or business operations are unlikely to pass muster, while inventions offering tangible technical advancements—such as enhanced processing, improved network performance, or system-level security—stand a stronger chance under the new framework.
That said, certain areas of the Draft Guidelines could benefit from further refinement. First, the Guidelines use the terms “technical effect” and “technical contribution” interchangeably, although they represent distinct concepts in patent law. This lack of distinction may lead to ambiguity in examination standards. Second, in discussing business methods, the Guidelines rely primarily on OpenTV (supra) without considering the position adopted in Priya Randolph, where a substantial technical effect could potentially support patentability even for business method-related inventions. Addressing these aspects would enhance the clarity, balance, and practical effectiveness of the CRI examination framework going forward.
This completes our analysis of the Draft CRI Guidelines 2025. Stakeholders and the public are invited to provide their comments and suggestions on the draft guidelines. Feedback can be sent via email to sukanya.ipo@nic.in with the subject line: “Comments on Draft CRI Guidelines 2025”. The last date for submitting comments is April 30, 2025 (extended from the previous deadline of April 15, 2025).