Listen to this post
Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025

Introduction

  • Computer Related Inventions (“CRIs”) comprise of inventions involving the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and techniques related thereto and include inventions having one or more features that are realised wholly or partially by means of a computer hardware/ software. To foster uniformity and consistency in examining applications with respect to CRIs, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks released “Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“CRIs”), 2017” (“2017 Guidelines”), which dealt with the various provisions to be considered by the patent office while dealing with patent applications related to CRIs.
  • The draft guidelines for examination of CRIs, 2025 (“2025 Draft Guidelines”), come in light of the massive changes that have taken place in the Information and Technology sector since the release of the 2017 Guidelines. In light of advancements in Artificial Intelligence, cloud computing, cyber security, quantum computing, 5G, and other fields in technology and cyber space, as well as the rapid development of jurisprudence on patentability of CRIs in India, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks has issued Guidelines to deal with the changes that have come about with respect to CRIs.

Key Features of the Draft Guidelines, 2025

  • The 2025 Draft Guidelines clarify the 2017 Guidelines and introduce an updated understanding of certain aspects to keep up with contemporary technological advancements. The key additions in the 2025 Draft Guidelines are as follows:
    • Defining “Algorithm”: Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (T) CMA (PT) No. 49 of 2023, the 2025 guidelines expand on the definition of the term “Algorithm” to mean: “… 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…”. The 2025 Guidelines clarify that devising an algorithm is protected by copyright laws in the context of software-based routines in computers. On the contrary, the 2017 Guidelines defined Algorithm as “a set of rules that must be followed when solving a particular problem”, without giving its context in Intellectual Property protection.
    • Introducing guidelines with respect to Algorithms: The 2025 draft Guidelines clarify that Algorithms are not patentable. However, reliance was placed on the hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs CA (COMM. IPD-PAT) 229/2025, which held that a computer programme could be patentable basis algorithmic instructions in a computer software, which results in a technical effect or contribution. Since the inventive feature is the result of an algorithm, and not the algorithm itself, algorithms per se are not patentable.
    • Defining and interpreting the term “per se” in contemporary terms and defining “Technical Effects/ Contribution”: As per Section 3(k) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, a computer programme per se is not patentable. The implication of the term per se is that a computer programme in itself is not patentable, however, it may be granted patent protection if it enhances another invention. The 2025 Draft Guidelines define the term per se as denoting that something is being considered alone and not with collected things. Additionally, the 2025 Draft Guidelines have relied on various recent jurisprudence to clarify the circumstances under which a computer programme is patentable, and not be hit by Section 3(k) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ferid Allaini v Union of India & Ors. WP (C) 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019 held that if the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or “technical” contribution, it is patentable even if it is based on a computer programme. The same has been upheld by various courts in the past five years.

The 2025 Guidelines have further narrowed it down to describe what constitutes technical effect and technical contribution, as follows:

a) Higher speed: If the claimed invention:

i. enhances the computational ability of the processor for more efficient processing,

ii. reduces the time period in scheduling job execution in HPC,

iii. enables hardware to process the output faster.

b) Reduced hard-disk/ memory access time: If the claimed invention:

i. reduces the use of memory space in the system and augments efficiency,

ii. creates a more efficient storage system,

iii. creates more effective data compression technique.

c) Better control of robotic arm: If the claimed invention results in more efficient arm maneuvering for multiple and distinct operations/ tasks, more accurate arm positioning at target spot, more efficient intricate movements, such as in surgical procedures, etc.

d)If the claimed invention leads to improved reception/ transmission of a radio/ electromagnetic/ communication signal.

e) If the claimed invention results in real-time monitoring and control of devices, leading to a technical solution to a technical problem.

f) Security enhancement in computer networks/ system: If the claimed invention leads to improved security of the authentication process, enhanced encryption/ decryption technique, etc.

g) If the claimed invention leads to Efficient Image Processing/ Signal Processing to solve a technical problem.”

The aforesaid list of guidelines provide a better perspective on CRI patentability under the scheme of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was not present in the 2017 Guidelines.

  • Patent Protection of AI driven Technologies: One of the most important features of the 2025 Draft Guidelines is that it introduces patentability of AI driven technologies. Reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s decision in Caleb Suresh Motupalli v. Controller of Patents CMA (PT) No. 2 of 2024 in the 2025 Draft Guidelines to analyse the requirement of disclosing the Best Method of performing an invention. In the case, the Hon’ble Court highlighted how the requirement of enablement is to be fulfilled in AI-driven technologies, stating that the invention must disclose specific implementation elements critical to reproducing the AI model’s functionality, such as training data sources, data pre-processing steps, chosen learning models (e.g., neural networks, decision trees), and any applied loss functions. The following examples were provided by the Hon’ble Court as guides for fulfilling the requirement in AI-driven technologies:

“a) In AI systems, while the inputs and outputs are typically known, the logic that transforms input into output may be complex or abstract. Description should aim to clarify this transformation as much as possible by detailing any known processes and variables. If test results or other forms of evidence validate the accuracy of the model’s output, these should be included, especially when the AI is used for precise applications where reliability is essential.

b) For a trained AI model, clearly defining the correlation between input and output data is critical. This correlation is considered fully described when:

i. The training data used for the model is explicitly identified,

ii. A link between the training data’s characteristics and the technical problem the invention addresses is made,

iii. The specific learning model and training methodology are comprehensively described, and

iv. The model, when trained, is shown to effectively address the technical problem with predictable results.

c) If data pre-processing plays a key role in the invention, all steps and functions of pre-processing should be disclosed, along with how they correlate to the end model. If this correlation isn’t clear or if a person skilled in the art might struggle to understand the link between raw data and processed learning data, the application risks failing to meet the enablement requirement.

d) For AI applications utilizing reinforcement learning, the application must specify how the system interacts with its environment, including agent interactions, states, actions, and rewards. Omitting these details, or failing to describe them in a way that a person skilled in the art can deduce, could result in a nonenabling disclosure.

e) AI inventions that improve a computer’s internal structure or operations should describe how the algorithm interacts with the hardware or system structure. This includes specifying how the model optimizes internal performance metrics like data storage, scheduling, or processing speeds, offering the necessary technical context.

f) When the invention’s technical effect depends on specific traits of the training dataset, these traits must be disclosed unless a person skilled in the art could identify them without undue experimentation. In most cases, it’s sufficient to describe the data’s defining characteristics rather than the specific dataset itself.

g) Blockchain patent applications are required to include comprehensive descriptions of the cryptographic techniques used, the specific data structures involved, the consensus mechanisms employed, and any interactions with hardware or network systems. These detailed disclosures enable others to fully understand, replicate, and assess the functionality and innovation of the blockchain technology described. Blockchain patent applications must clearly define elements like distributed ledgers, consensus mechanisms, cryptographic processes, and network configurations. Clear descriptions of consensus mechanisms and data layouts (e.g., block structures, linkages) are crucial for enablement.

h) If the invention employs a novel machine learning technique, a comprehensive description is mandatory. This should cover essential aspects, such as the structure of neural networks, activation functions, network topology, convergence criteria, metadata and the learning mechanisms used. Each component of the algorithm should be disclosed to the extent it is necessary to achieve the invention’s claimed technical effects, ensuring that a person skilled in the art can replicate the process accurately.”

  • These mark the key changes that have been introduced in the 2025 Draft Guidelines. The 2025 Draft Guidelines provide examples of certain patentable claims related to CRIs, highlighting the application of modern technology and AI while specifying what kinds of inventions are considered patentable.

Conclusion

Considering the recent modifications to the guidelines for the examination of CRIs, the 2025 Draft Guidelines focus on emerging technologies and examine the application of established laws to these new technologies through interpretation.