Analyzing the Draft Computer related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025

On March 25, 2025, the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) released the Draft Revised Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2025. These Guidelines revise and clarify the 2017 Guidelines by integrating judicial rulings and improving legal alignment. The goal is to enhance predictability and transparency in CRI examination while maintaining legal and technical rigor.

Section 3(k) – The Legal Basis for Exclusion

Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter, “Act”), states: “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms [are not inventions within the meaning of this Act].” Therefore, mathematical models, business models, computer programs per se and algorithms are not patent-eligible subject matters in India.

Evolving Definitions

The 2025 Guidelines improve the existing definitions in the 2017 Guidelines with legally grounded definitions derives from judicial decisions:

Algorithms

In the 2017 Guidelines, the term “algorithm” was interpreted based on its general dictionary meaning, which left room for interpretation and ambiguity in patent cases. However, the 2025 Guidelines use the definition from the Madras High Court in the case of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs,1 “An algorithm may be defined as a set of rules or instructions for solving a problem, typically through a sequence of steps or operations. Devising an algorithm would also, therefore, be an intellectual exercise and intellectual property protection would be limited to copyright protection, subject to originality, for the form of expression. While the expression is commonly used in the context of software-based routines in computers, as is evident from the above, it can be used in other contexts…”

Thus, algorithms that are original in expression but functional in nature may now find easier and better protection. As per norm, protection for algorithms will not extend beyond copyright unless they meet the originality requirement for patenting.

Secure System

The 2025 CRI Guidelines introduce a new term: “Secure System”, the definition of which is sourced from the Information Technology Act, 2000: “Secure system means computer hardware, software, and procedure that– (a) are reasonably secure from unauthorised access and misuse; (b) provide a reasonable level of reliability and correct operation; (c) are reasonably suited to performing the intended functions; and (d) adhere to generally accepted security procedures.”

This definition of a “Secure System” can aid applicants in claiming technical effect and/or technical advancement when arguing patentability for their inventions.

Other Terms

The definitions for “Per Se”, “Hardware”, “Firmware” and “Software” have been revised by adding their dictionary meanings.

Novelty and Inventiveness Determination in CRIs

Novelty

According to Section 2(1)(j) of the 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 2017 Guidelines, no detailed procedure was prescribed for the assessment of novelty of a CRI. However, the Draft 2025 Guidelines has a dedicated section for the assessment of novelty of CRIs as per 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 in Ericsson:2 “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 [Pillars] 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.”

The 2025 Guidelines also 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.

Inventiveness

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.3 and Delhi High Court’s F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd4. for the assessing inventiveness as per the 5-step analysis approach which was recently upheld in Ericsson (supra):

  1. Identify the “person skilled in the art”, i.e., competent craftsman or engineer as distinguished from a mere artisan;
  2. Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person at the priority date;
  3. Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it;
  4. 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;
  5. 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

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, the Guidelines provide 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.

Sufficiency of Disclosure Determination

Sufficiency of the disclosure requirement is enshrined under Section 10(4) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) which mandates that every complete specification shall:

  1. Fully and particularly describe the invention and its operation or use and the method by which it is to be performed;
  2. Disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection; and
  3. End with a claim or claims defining the scope of the invention for which protection is claimed;
  4. Be accompanied by an abstract to provide technical information on the invention.

According to the Act, the applicant must describe “what” the invention is and “how” it will be implemented. To meet the “what” criteria, the invention must be thoroughly and specifically stated. To meet the “how” condition, the applicant must also provide the best-known technique for implementing the invention. Therefore, the complete specification should completely and specifically describe the invention to comply with the Act’s requirements. It should also enable a person skilled in the art to work on the invention without the patentee’s help or additional excessive experimentation. The description must be unambiguous, clear, correct, and accurate. It must not contain any statements which may mislead the person skilled in the art to whom the specification is addressed. 

Owing to the nature of CRIs, particularly those involving AI, ML, or blockchain, it is often difficult to clearly identify and describe the “what” and “how” in the specification. The 2025 Guidelines recognize this challenge and throw some light in this direction and on how CRI inventions can comply with this requirement.

Importantly, the Draft Guidelines refer to the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s decision in Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs. Controller of Patents5, which reiterated that vague references to techniques such as “object-oriented design” or “black-box modernization”—without specific implementation instructions—cannot fulfill the sufficiency requirement. In this case, the Court held that merely collating prior art concepts without teaching how they are adapted for the invention’s objective constitutes insufficient disclosure.

The Draft Guidelines illustrate how different categories of CRIs can meet the disclosure and enablement requirements through specific examples.

AI Inventions

AI-based inventions should disclose:

  • The input-output relationship with clarity on transformation logic.
  • The nature and characteristics of training data.
  • Learning algorithms used, training methods, and performance benchmarks.
  • Any preprocessing methods and how they affect model behavior.
  • If reinforcement learning is used, the environment-agent dynamics and reward structure must be detailed.
  • If the technical effect depends on specific training data traits, those traits (not necessarily the raw data) must be described.

Blockchain Inventions

Blockchain-based inventions should explain:

  • Cryptographic techniques applied.
  • The structure of blocks and how data is linked or verified.
  • Consensus protocols used and their role in ensuring system reliability.
  • Any hardware–network interactions or interfaces.

Machine Learning Techniques

Applications claiming Novel ML techniques must provide a thorough description, including neural network structure, activation functions, network topology, convergence criteria, metadata, and learning procedures. Each algorithm component should be disclosed just to the amount required to achieve the invention’s claimed technological effects, ensuring that a person skilled in the art may accurately recreate the process.

Our Analysis

The Draft Guidelines 2025 significantly improve on the 2017 version in their treatment of sufficiency of disclosure. By offering clear, domain-specific expectations—especially for disruptive technologies like AI/ML and blockchain—they align more closely with global practices.

However, challenges remain. The primary concern is feasibility: how much detail can inventors reasonably disclose without sacrificing trade secrets or overburdening the specification with implementation code? The USPTO’s AI Guidance also recognizes the tension between enablement and trade secrets and permits certain redactions or generalizations as long as they do not impair enablement. Similarly, describing an AI model’s logic can be difficult when the model evolves post-deployment.

Having said the above, the Draft Guidelines do offer a practical roadmap. For applicants, they highlight the need to invest time upfront in drafting specifications that explain the invention in engineering detail, not just functional terms. For examiners, they clarify the boundary between patentable subject matter and abstract ideas.

In sum, the sufficiency of disclosure in CRIs is no longer a matter of reciting system architecture or declaring “AI is used.” However, the success of these Guidelines will hinge not on their articulation but on whether the Patent Office can consistently apply them without drifting into either over-exclusion or over-disclosure—two ends of the same dangerous spectrum.

Determination of Excluded Subject Matter

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.

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 (2023) (supra), 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 2025 Guidelines retains the 2017 approach but emphasizes, based on OpenTV6, 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 7and Microsoft8, 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 (2024) (supra) and Blackberry9. 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

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. 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 2025 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 Randolph10, where it was held that 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.

Conclusion

The Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 represent a pivotal shift in India’s approach to patenting computer-related inventions. By grounding examination standards in judicial precedent, the Guidelines bring much-needed clarity to a complex and evolving field. However, their long-term impact will depend on consistent and balanced implementation by the Patent Office.

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 was April 30, 2025 (extended from the previous deadline of April 15, 2025), which has now expired. Our Firm, Kan and Krishme provided our detailed comments and suggestions on the Guidelines on how to improve them further.






  1. (T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023 ↩︎
  2. Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) vs Lava International Ltd, CS(COMM) 65/2016 ↩︎
  3. AIR 1982 SC 1444 ↩︎
  4. CS (OS) No.89/2008 and C.C. 52/2008 ↩︎
  5.  C.M.A. (PT) No. 2 of 2024 ↩︎
  6.  OpenTV Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2021] ↩︎
  7. Ferid Allani vs. Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019] ↩︎
  8. Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022] ↩︎
  9. Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022] ↩︎
  10. Priya Randolph vs. The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs ((T)CMA(PT)/109/2023) [OA/13/2018/PT/CHN) ↩︎

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Reach us at knk@kankrishme.com

knk@kankrishme.com
X