Decoding CRI Guidelines 2025

On March 25, 2025, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) released the draft guidelines for examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) on the website of Indian Patent Office. This move marks a significant step toward modernising India’s patent examination process in the context of rapidly advancing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Stakeholders and the public have been invited to provide their comments and suggestions on the draft guidelines by sending an email to sukanya.ipo@nic.in by April 30, 2025, the initial deadline was April 15, 2025, but it has been extended.

Introduction

With Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other ICT-based innovations transforming sectors like healthcare, education, security and finance, the need for a dynamic and responsive IP framework has become essential. These emerging technologies are not only reshaping industries but also presenting new regulatory challenges in Intellectual property rights (IPRs).

The CGPDTM, staying committed to its role as a forward-looking regulatory authority, has consistently worked to enhance the patent examination process. The current draft guidelines represent a significant evolution from 2017 CRI Guidelines, addressing the need for clarity and relevance in today’s tech landscape.

The draft guidelines aim to improve the interpretational clarity of Section 3 (K) of the Patents Act, 1970. By integrating insights from the recent case laws in the relevant field, the new guidelines are intended to provide a robust framework for the efficient examination of computer-related inventions.

Revised Definitions

The draft guidelines incorporate more detailed and comprehensive definitions for the following terms,

• Algorithm: “…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…” citing Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[1]
• Per se – “of, in, or by itself; standing alone, without reference to additional facts; this phrase denotes that something is being considered alone, and not with other collected things…” citing Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[2]

A New term has been introduced,

• “Secure System,” as per the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been defined as: “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;” 

Case Laws Cited in the Guidelines

Judicial precedents play a crucial role in interpreting the scope, meaning and legislative intent of the provisions of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, as established by the Hon’ble courts in recent decisions.

The Following case laws are cited for interpreting Section 3(k) of Indian Patents Act,

• Ferid Allani vs. Union of India & Ors. (12 December, 2019) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court[3]

“… If the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution” it is patentable even though it may be based on a computer program…”

• Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[4] (15 May, 2023) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court

“This technical solution goes beyond the user-interface level and provides a technical effect and contribution, that is patentable” …(Indicating that the subject matter of the invention must be considered to assess the non-patentability criteria rather than making decisions solely on the claims)

• Opentv Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs[5] (11 May, 2023) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court

…the exclusion in respect of business methods is an absolute one and is not restricted by the words ‘per se’ as in the case of computer programs…”

• Raytheon Company vs Controller General of Patents and Designs[6] (15 September, 2023) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court on

“…the patent office needs to examine if there is a technical contribution or as to what is the technical effect generated by the invention as claimed... The requirement of novel hardware is a higher standard which lacks any basis in law…””

• Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs[7] (16 April, 2024) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court

“…the inventive contribution of a patent should not only improve the functionality of the system but also achieve an innovative technical advantage that is clearly defined and distinct from ordinary operations expected of such systems…”

• Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs[8] (3 July, 2024) – Hon’ble Madras High Court

“…even when the claimed invention relates to a CRI, if it results in a technical effect that improves the system’s functioning and efficacy (effect on hardware), or provides a technical solution to a technical problem and is, therefore, not limited in its impact to a particular application or data set, it would surmount the exclusion under section 3(k) of the Patents Act…”.

• Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[9] (30 July, 2024) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court

“…If an ingenious input system/method is able to allow the processor to give a more efficient and faster output and computation, the effect, in this Court’s opinion, would be ‘technical‘…”

• Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[10] (30 August, 2024) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Considering that an algorithm results in a technical effect or technical contribution then “…the inventive feature would have to be the implementation and not the algorithm itself…”

Novelty, Inventive Step and Industrial Applicability in CRIs

The draft guidelines clarify that the assessment of novelty in respect of CRIs must be conducted in the same manner as any other field of invention. However, it has also cited the judicial precedent of Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) vs Lava International Ltd, where the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has proposed a ‘Seven Stambhas Approach’ for evaluating the novelty of an invention, these steps are:

• Understanding of the Claims of the Invention
• Identify Relevant Prior Art
• Analyse the Prior Art
• Determine Explicit and Implicit Disclosures
• Assessment of material differences while considering the entire scope of the Claims
• Verifying Novelty in light of Comprehensive Scope and Specific Combination of Claimed Elements
• Documentation of the Analysis and Novelty Determination

The guidelines remain unchanged with respect to the inventive step and industrial applicability.

Sufficiency of Disclosure

Regarding the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure, the draft guidelines adopt the interpretation laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s view in the matter of Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs Controller Of Patents[11], The court emphasized that for AI-related inventions, the disclosure must be specific and detailed enough to enable the reproduction of the invention by a person skilled in the art. This ensures that AI model functionality and algorithmic implementations are fully understood and replicable.  The draft guidelines include specific examples of different types of AI related inventions and specific information that must be disclosed to comply with the enablement requirement.

Furthermore, the draft highlights that during the novelty examination, the emphasis must be on the substance of the invention, not merely on the form of its claims. The substance should be evaluated by reading the entire claim holistically.

Interpretation of Section 3(K)

The draft guidelines also provide guidelines for interpretation of the section 3(k) from the findings of the Courts

• “Mathematical Method” – Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs[12]
  • “mathematical method exclusion is intended to exclude the mere expression of an intellectual exercise, such as a method of calculation, the formulation of equations and the like. By way of illustration, Brent’s method in numerical analysis to find the root or the Adams’ method of solving differential equations would be excluded. Said Guidelines also clarify – again, correctly – that the mere presence of a mathematical formula in a claim would not necessarily render it ‘a mathematical method’ claim…”
• “Business Method” – Opentv Inc vs The Controller of Patents And Designs[13]
  • “The bar in India to grant of business method patents has to be read as an absolute bar without analysing issues relating to technical effect, implementation, technical advancement or technical contribution…”
  • Non patentable subject matter includes enablement of conduct or administration of a particular business e., sale or purchase of goods or services, manner of doing business, or method of sale or purchase of goods or services etc.
• “Algorithm” – Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and designs[14]; Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs[15]
  • A pure algorithm is not patentable under Indian Patents Act, 1970
  • inventive feature of an invention is the implementation of the algorithm and not the algorithm itself,
• “Computer Programme per se” – Ferid Allani vs. Union Of India[16] & Ors; Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs[17]
  • “If the subject matter is implemented on a general-purpose computer, but results in a technical effect that improves the computer system’s functionality and effectiveness, the claimed invention cannot be rejected on non-patentability as “computer program per se…”.

Technical Effect/Technical Contribution in CRIs

Based on the interpretations of the Hon’ble Courts, the draft guidelines incorporate a non-exhaustive list of potential technical effect(s). An invention shall be considered to have “technical effect” if it demonstrates a tangible technological advancement that contributes to solving a technical problem.

Examples of Technical Effects are:

• Higher speed
• Reduced hard-disk/memory access time
• Better control of robotic arm
• Improved reception/transmission of a radio/electromagnetic/communication signal
• Real-time monitoring and control of devices leading to technical solution to a technical problem
• Security enhancement in computer networks/system
• Image Processing/Signal Processing to solve a technical problem

Examples

The guidelines provide examples for both patentable and non-patentable claims in CRIs, ensuring that examiners and stakeholders can clearly distinguish eligible and ineligible inventions.

Conclusion

The rapidly advancing field of Information Technology has given rise to innovative, algorithm driven technologies. The revised CRI guidelines by CGPDTM reflect a commitment to keep pace with these advancements by refining the framework for patentable inventions. This approach helps reduce ambiguities during patent examination, supports robust IP protection, and foster a healthier innovative ecosystem.

[1] Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents (3 July, 2024) ((T) CMA (PT)

No.49 of 2023[OA/36/2020/PT/CHN])

[2] Supra1

[3] Ferid Allani vs. Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019]

[4] Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc vs The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A.

(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022]

[5] Opentv Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2021]

[6] Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 121/2022]

[7] Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc vs The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

[C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 185/2022]

[8] Supra1

[9] Ab Initio Technology Llc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT)

26/2021]

[10] Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022]

[11] Caleb Suresh Motupalli vs Controller Of Patents23 [C.M.A. (PT) No. 2 of 2024]

[12] Supra1

[13] Supra5

[14] Supra1

[15] Supra10

[16] Supra3

[17] Supra4