The Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), issued by the Indian Patent Office in March 2025, aim to bring greater clarity to the examination of patent applications concerning emerging digital technologies. These include Artificial Intelligence (AI), Blockchain, Quantum Computing, Cloud Computing, and the Internet of Things (IoT).
Terms/definitions
The guidelines begin with definitions of key terms relevant to CRIs, including:
- Algorithm
- Computer
- Computer Network
- Computer Programme
- Computer System
- Data
- Firmware
- Function
- Hardware
- Information
- Per se
- Software
- Secure System
These terms form the foundation for interpretation and examination of CRI applications.
Legal provisions and recent jurisprudence
The guidelines cite multiple judicial decisions that have contributed to the evolution of CRI patent law in India. These include:
- Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019)
- Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (2023 and 2024)
- OpenTV Inc v. Controller of Patents and Designs (2023)
- Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs (2023)
- Ab Initio Technology LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (2024)
- Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (2024)
- Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller of Patents (2025)
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd (2024)
As per the Guidelines, these cases reinforce that CRIs can be patentable if they result in a technical effect or technical contribution, even if implemented via software or algorithms on general-purpose computing systems. The guidelines emphasize that substance, not form, must guide the examination, particularly where claims relate to system functionality, efficiency, security, or hardware interaction are involved.
Technical Effect and Patentability
Drawing from the above precedents, the guidelines reiterate that technical effect is a critical determinant in assessing patentability. As per the Guidelines, a technical effect, as defined, must represent a concrete technological improvement beyond abstract ideas or mental processes.
Examination procedure related to CRI applications
-
Novelty
Citing the Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd (2024) decision, the guidelines adopt the Seven Stambhas Approach:
- Understand the claims
- Identify relevant prior art
- Analyse prior art
- Determine explicit and implicit disclosures
- Assess material differences in view of claim scope
- Verify novelty through combinations and specific elements
- Document the novelty analysis and findings
-
Inventive Step
Citing Section 2(1)(ja), the guidelines define an inventive step as a technical advance or economic significance (or both), which is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Relying on the Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam case, the guidelines insist on a strict and objective assessment of obviousness.
For CRIs, the invention must go beyond excluded subject matter, with a five-step test recommended:
- Identify the person skilled in the art
- Establish general knowledge in the domain
- Define the inventive concept
- Compare with prior art
- Determine if the differences are obvious
If the innovation lies entirely in excluded subject matter such as an algorithm, the invention will not qualify as inventive.
-
Sufficiency of Disclosure
In line with Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, the guidelines emphasize that CRI specifications must fully describe:
- The invention
- The best method of performance
- All technical components and operations
Citing Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller of Patents (2025), the guidelines highlight that disclosures requiring undue experimentation or inventive faculty are non-compliant. Disclosures must be clear, replicable, and complete.
Disclosure Requirements
For AI Inventions
- Clearly explain input-output transformations in AI systems
- Detail training data, learning model, and outcomes for trained AI models
- Describe pre-processing steps and their effects
- For reinforcement learning, explain environment interactions
- Show algorithm interaction with hardware or architecture
- Disclose dataset traits when technical effect depends on them
For blockchain related inventions:
- Describe cryptography, consensus, and network interaction
For novel ML techniques:
- Provide complete architectural and functional descriptions
Claim Drafting and Interpretation
The guidelines reiterate that claims must be:
- Clear and succinct and must comply with unity of invention requirements under Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970.
- Fairly based on the disclosure
- Substantively examined for exclusions under Section 3(k)
- For means-plus-function claims, corresponding structural features must be disclosed in the specification. Claims without such disclosure are not allowable.
Assessment of Excluded Subject Matter under Section 3(k)
The guidelines provide clarification on the following:
Mathematical Methods: Not patentable unless applied in a technical process solving real-world problems
Business Methods: Excluded if they automate known practices without technical improvement
Algorithms: Non-patentable in isolation; may be considered if producing tangible technical effects
Computer Programmes per se: Excluded unless the programme results in technical contribution or solves a specific technical problem via hardware interaction
Examples of Recognised Technical Effects
The guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of technical effects that may support patentability:
- Higher speed
- Reduced hard disk access time
- More economical use of memory
- More efficient database search
- Improved user interface
- Better control of robotic arm
- Improved reception/transmission of a radio signal
- Simultaneous recording/playback of audio/video
- Improved data compression techniques
- Enhanced data security and authentication
Other Statutory Exclusions
With respect to Sections 3(m), 3(l), 3(n), and 3(o), the guidelines clarify that the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure (MPPP) shall apply.
Conclusion
The draft CRI guidelines conclude with illustrative examples of patentable and non-patentable CRI claims, offering much-needed clarity for applicants and practitioners working at the intersection of IP and emerging technologies.
Link to the draft CRI guidelines 2025: https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Draft_CRI_Guidelines_Publication_March2025.pdf