Cracking the Algorithm: Blackberry’s Patents Battle Section 3(k) in India

Introduction

The Indian Patents Act, 1970 plays a crucial role in defining what constitutes patentable subject matter. One of the most debated provisions is Section 3(k), which excludes the patenting of algorithms, business methods, and computer programs per se. In 2024, the Delhi High Court heard two key cases involving Blackberry Limited, which revolved around patent applications for software-driven inventions. These cases—C.A. (COMM-IPD-PAT) 229/2022 and C.A. (COMM-IPD-PAT) 318/2022—offer valuable insights into when an algorithm transcends being a mere set of instructions and can be eligible for patent protection.

Facts and Background

Below is a quick summary of the two cases, highlighting the key details that shaped the court’s decisions.

C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 318/2022
Case TitleBlackberry Limited vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and DesignsBlackberry Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs
CourtDelhi High Court
JudgePrathiba M. Singh
Date 30-Aug-24
Patent 1762/DEL/2008 – Administration of Wireless Systems717/DEL/2009 –Auto-Selection of Media Files
Claim 1System managing conflicts between wireless servers, determining configuration data, and resolving conflicts for smooth operation.Method for managing media files in a device by assigning a confidence level and automatically selecting files to fill available storage.
Reason for RefusalAlgorithm-based, non-inventive hardware, fell under Section 3(k).Algorithm-based, considered a sequence of instructions for managing media without providing a technical effect, and thus excluded under Section 3(k).
IssueWhether the invention qualifies for patent protection or is excluded under Section 3(k) as an algorithmic process.
The LawSection 3(k) of Indian Patents Act: Excludes algorithms, mathematical methods, and computer programs per se from patentability.
Appellant’s SubmissionsThe invention solved a technical problem by resolving conflicts between wireless servers and had a technical effect.The invention dynamically selects media files based on available storage and preferences, providing technical advancements.
Respondent’s SubmissionsThe invention is algorithmic, lacked inventive hardware, and fell under the Section 3(k) exclusion.The invention is algorithmic, involving non-technical features like file selection based on user preferences, and thus excluded under Section 3(k).
Court’s AnalysisThe invention is based on conditional logic without inventive hardware, making it algorithmic. The invention is purely related to the algorithm, without any substantial change in hardware, making it non-patentable under Section 3(k).The invention results in a significant enhancement of the capability of the device and makes it ‘functionally’ more efficient without any changes to storage space (dynamic media synchronization, cache management etc). This, satisfies the test of technical effect and technical contribution.
HeldThe invention is algorithmic, lacks inventive hardware, and falls under Section 3(k). The appeal is dismissed.Appeal allowed partially. Blackberry is directed to amend claims focusing on automatic selection and cache management to allow patent grant.
RatioIf algorithm instructions are implemented through computer software and result in a technical effect or contribution then the test applicable to computer software can also be applied and patentability can be adjudged.An invention involving algorithms must demonstrate technical effects, such as improved functionality of devices, to be patentable and avoid exclusion under Section 3(k).

Our Analysis

The two Blackberry judgments, although both involving algorithm-related patents, demonstrate different outcomes based on the specific technical contributions of each invention.

In the first judgment, C.A. (COMM-IPD-PAT) 229/2022, the court adopted a stringent approach by refusing patent protection on the grounds that the invention was essentially an algorithm without any inventive hardware or demonstrable technical effect. The court focused heavily on the exclusion under Section 3(k) and the Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, 2017, and, concluded that the invention did not extend beyond a mere set of instructions. This led to the rejection of the application, consistent with the precedent set by Lava International Ltd. vs. TLM Ericsson1, which emphasized that an invention must enhance hardware functionality to be patentable. This strict interpretation could be seen as somewhat restrictive, as it did not thoroughly explore whether the invention might offer a technical contribution in terms of improving system functionality.

In contrast, the second judgment, C.A. (COMM-IPD-PAT) 318/2022, showcased a more nuanced approach. The court acknowledged that features like dynamic media synchronization and cache management enhanced the device’s functionality and efficiency. Recognizing these technical contributions, the court allowed the appeal partially, directing amendments to the claims to focus on these aspects. This decision aligns with the evolving understanding that software-related inventions can be patentable if they provide a tangible technical effect or improvement, even if they involve algorithms.

A key point of consideration is the application of the technical effect test, which has been time and again reaffirmed in judicial precedents like Ferid Allani2, Microsoft 3and more. The courts have emphasized that an invention can overcome the exclusion under Section 3(k) if it demonstrates a technical advancement or contributes to a technical field. However, the exact parameters of what constitutes a sufficient technical effect remain somewhat ambiguous, leading to varying interpretations and outcomes.

Comparative Analysis with US and EP

Comparing the Indian approach with that of the United States and the European Patent Office (EPO) highlights some differences.

In the United States, patent eligibility is governed by the Alice-Mayo Test4, which has been criticized for its vagueness and inconsistent application. The test involves two steps: determining whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and if so, assessing whether the claim adds “something more” to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This has led to significant uncertainty for applicants, with many patents being reversed on appeal due to §101 rejections. The broad and often inconsistent interpretation of abstract ideas makes it challenging for applicants to frame their inventions in a way that ensures patentability.

On the other hand, the EPO offers a more structured approach with its problem-solution framework in its Guidelines. The EPO focuses on whether the invention solves a technical problem in a novel and inventive way. This method provides clearer guidelines for applicants, emphasizing the necessity of a concrete technical contribution. By centering the analysis on solving a technical problem, the EPO provides a clearer pathway for patent eligibility, especially for software-related inventions.

In India, while Section 3(k) excludes algorithms and computer programs per se, recent judgments have shown a willingness to consider the technical contributions of an invention. By focusing on tangible technical effects, Indian courts are providing a more structured framework for assessing patentability in this area, though some ambiguity still exists. This approach is somewhat aligned with the EPO’s, offering applicants a clearer understanding of how to present their inventions to meet patentability requirements.

Teachings from Blackberry(s)5

  1. Focus on Technical Contributions: The specification should clearly articulate the technical contributions of the invention. Highlight how the algorithm improves system functionality, such as enhancing hardware performance, optimizing resource usage, or improving data management.
  2. Draft Claims with Hardware Interaction: To overcome Section 3(k) exclusions, claims should emphasize the interaction between software and hardware. By demonstrating that the algorithm enhances hardware operation, applicants can better argue that their invention provides more than abstract instructions.
  3. Avoid Abstract Claims: Avoid focusing solely on algorithms or software aspects without showing real-world applications. Practical benefits such as improved synchronization or resource management should be front and center in the specification, if not in the claims.

Conclusion

The two Blackberry cases provide a valuable lens through which to view the evolving approach of Indian courts toward algorithm-based patents under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act. While the exclusion of algorithms and computer programs per se remains a significant barrier, these cases demonstrate that algorithm inventions can still qualify for patent protection if they contribute to a technical field or improve hardware functionality. The differing outcomes between the two cases underscore the importance of carefully framing claims to highlight technical contributions and real-world applications.

Moreover, by comparing the Indian approach to the Alice-Mayo Test in the U.S. and the problem-solution approach of the EPO, it becomes evident that while India is aligning itself more closely with global best practices, challenges around clarity and predictability remain. Patent applicants must strategically focus on technical effects and system improvements to navigate these challenges successfully.

  1. Lava International Limited vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, [CS(COMM) 65/2016, Delhi High Court judgment dated, 28th March 2024] ↩︎
  2. Ferid Allani vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019, Delhi High Court judgement dated 12th December, 2019] ↩︎
  3. Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs [C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022, Delhi High Court judgement dated 15th May, 2023] ↩︎
  4. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012) ↩︎
  5.  https://aumirah.com/recommendations-for-future-patent-applicants-based-on-blackberry-limiteds-case/  ↩︎

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Reach us at knk@kankrishme.com

X