Technical fallacies identified by the European Patent Office
What are the three arguments (technical fallacies), that the EPO have identified, that are unlikely to overcome an excluded…
Read more
In June 2025, the Indian Patent Office issued updated guidelines for examination of computer related inventions (CRIs). These are the latest version in a series of guidelines first published in 2013. The aim of the latest revision to the guidelines being to provide additional clarification on matters concerning the patentability of CRIs in India for both examiners as well as applicants and their attorneys.
The June 2025 guidelines include improved procedural guidance relating to the patentability and examination of CRIs with notable references to recent case law. These updates put a particular focus on sec 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act 1970 which relates to excluded subject matter, in particular ‘mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs per se and algorithms’ as well as rapidly emerging technologies such as AI, machine learning, deep learning, quantum computing and blockchain.
The update aims to provide clarity for applicants seeking to obtain patents in India relating to field of technologies where the number of patent applications being filed is constantly increasing worldwide. Furthermore, India has a particularly active startup culture for businesses in the field of AI and blockchain technology. Where previously these startups may have not filed a patent application for computer implemented inventions they may have developed, these guidelines may provide potential applicants with more certainty around the types of inventions they may successfully be able to successfully obtain a patent for.
As mentioned above, the update has a particular emphasis on sec 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act 1970 which relates to excluded subject matter, in particular ‘mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs per se and algorithms’.
In the case of computer programs per se and algorithms, the updated guidelines indicate that a computer program may be patentable if the invention demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribution. The new guidelines refer to recent Indian case law such as Ferid Allani vs Union of India & Ors (2019) and Microsoft vs The Assistant Comptroller (2023). In the Microsoft case, the High Court stated that ‘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…’
In order to provide further clarity on this matter, the guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of what may be considered a technical effect including higher processing speeds, reduced hard-disk/memory access time, better control of a robotic arm, improved reception/transmission of a signal, real time monitoring and control of a device, enhanced security in a computer network and efficient image/signal processing.
The latest guidelines provide example claims and model evaluation of these claims to assess whether they would fall within the scope of excluded subject matter under sec 3(k).
Novelty
The updated guidelines also provide clarity on the assessment of novelty for CRIs. The guidelines refer to the so called ‘Seven Stambhas Approach’ as set out in the Ericsson vs Lava (2024) decision to provide seven steps for the assessment of novelty. These steps are:
The guidelines emphasize the importance of sufficiency of disclosure in computer implemented inventions. The applicant is required to specify ‘what’ the invention is by fully and particularly describing the invention and ‘how’ to perform to perform the invention by describes the best method of performing the invention. Sufficiently disclosing the invention is particularly important in AI related inventions.
The updated guidelines provide a detailed discussion of emerging technologies such as AI, machine learning, deep learning, blockchain and quantum computing. The guidelines indicate that whilst these technologies are fundamentally built on mathematical models, inventions based on such technologies may be patentable if the invention ‘leverages the theoretical constructs’ on which it is based to ‘provide an implementable technical solution’. The guidelines concisely explain this as ‘if the innovation transforms abstract principles into real world, tangible applications, it may become patentable’.
The updated guidelines outline the differences in patentability of AI generated inventions vs AI assisted inventions. AI generated inventions refer to inventions ‘created by AI systems autonomously or with very limited human intervention’. Since the AI system is not considered a person, AI generated inventions are not patentable. On the other hand, AI assisted inventions which refer to inventions ‘made using AI as a tool in the inventive process’ are patentable provided they meet the other patentability criteria and provide a technical effect.
The guidelines set out a number of worked examples demonstrating the assessment of excluded subject matter and sufficiency for AI, machine learning, deep learning, blockchain and quantum computing related inventions.
The new guidelines aim to provide clarity for applicants looking to protect their computer related inventions. They will also simplify examination of these patent applications for examiners which should lead to more consistent examination of CRIs patent applications.
Furthermore, the improved clarity may lead to an increase in patent applications filed by Indian based start ups as well as an increase in foreign entities pursuing patent protection in India.
For more information about this case or any other advice on intellectual property protection please contact us.