Navigating the New Frontier: India’s Revised Cri Guidelines 2025

INTRODUCTION

Innovation thrives when frameworks evolve alongside technology and India’s recent update to its patent examination guidelines for computer-related inventions (CRIs) underscores this principle. Released on 29 July 2025, the revised guidelines promise to transform the landscape for patenting AI, ML, blockchain, quantum technologies, and more in India.

The journey began with the release of the first Draft Guidelines for Examination of CRIs, 2025 (Version 1.0) on 25 March 2025, inviting public feedback through stakeholder consultations across Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai. A refined Version 2.0 followed on 26 June 2025, enriched by insights from practitioners, academia, and industry voices. After reviewing myriad suggestions, the final version was released at the end of July 2025.

WHY THIS UPDATE MATTERS

The 2017 CRI guidelines had long guided Indian patent practice, but rapid advances in emerging technologies demanded a refresh. The new 2025 guidelines align more closely with evolving judicial precedents and international standards; they bring much-needed clarity to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which excludes certain computer-related subject matter, such as “mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” from patentability[1].

These revisions aren’t just legal formalities, they reflect real progress. With computer-related inventions forming the bulk of patent filings in India, a more structured, predictable, and transparent examination system strengthens the innovation ecosystem.

RICH IN STRUCTURE: WHAT’S INSIDE THE GUIDELINES

The new guidelines are significantly more comprehensive. While the March draft spanned 47 pages, Version 2.0 extends to 62 pages, with an Annexure I of 73 pages offering detailed, non-exhaustive examples that illustrate what is and isn’t patentable under Section 3(k) exclusions.

Here are key structural and content enhancements:

• A new dedicated section (Section 5) focuses specifically on AI, ML, Deep Learning, Blockchain, and Quantum Computing, offering technology-specific examination approaches and examples.
• Flowcharts and step-wise tests are included for each excluded category—mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, and computer programs per se—simplifying examiners’ analysis and boosting transparency.
• Updated jurisprudential guidance integrates a wealth of recent landmark judgments, reinforcing the importance of “technical effect” and “technical contribution.” Notable cases include Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019)[2], Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Controller of Patents (Madras HC, 2024)[3], Opentv Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2023)[4], and Raytheon Company v. CGPDTM (2023)[5].
• Notation-rich terminology (e.g., algorithm, computer programme, secure system) is clarified via statutory and judicial references, enhancing precision and helping eliminate ambiguity.

DELVING DEEPER: CORE THEMES AND HIGHLIGHTS

Bridging Case Law and Guidelines

The guidelines shine in weaving judicial reasoning into practical examination advice. For example, a patentable claim must demonstrate a technical effect, such as faster processing, improved memory access, real-time control functions, or systems-level improvements not just an abstract algorithm or general method. The guidelines emphasize that the technical effect is key, whether the invention is implemented via hardware or software honoring judgments like the Madras High Court’s position that the inventive feature must lie in implementation, not the algorithm alone.

Algorithm Exclusion: Clarified via a Two-Step Test

Addressing the confusion around algorithm exclusion, the guidelines propose a two-step test: first, assess the actual substance of the claim beyond its wording; second, determine whether that substance is abstract or concretely implemented. If a claim lacks details like implementation mechanisms, it may be treated as an abstract algorithm and excluded.

Ensuring Appropriate Disclosure

Particularly in AI contexts, sufficient disclosure is vital. The guidelines align with judicial precedents requiring detailed descriptions, e.g., data flows, model structures, training methodology—to ensure a skilled person can reproduce the invention. This ensures applications are not merely conceptually sound, but practically replicable.

Soliciting and Integrating Stakeholder Feedback

The consultation process addressed real concerns. For instance, some stakeholders advocated that the guidelines be binding (not optional), pushed for examiner training, cautioned against over-emphasis on specific hardware details, and sought clarity on computer-readable medium claims and disclosure requirements. Others recommended that the Patent Office treat AI as a distinct category, highlighting nuances like inventorship, model training, and AI-generated output.

These inputs helped shape the final version into a more balanced, user-friendly, and robust framework.

THE BROADER IMPACT: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR INNOVATORS

For inventors, startups, law firms, and R&D teams, the revised CRI guidelines mark a turning point. They deliver:

• Transparency: Clear tests and examples help applicants anticipate outcomes.
• Consistency: Flowcharts and structured methods reduce examiner variability.
• Clarity: Incorporation of case law anchors decision-making to legal precedent.
• Innovation Enablement: Inventive software-driven technologies now have a clearer pathway to patentability, so long as they deliver genuine technical value.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The Revised CRI Guidelines 2025 are more than just bureaucratic updates, they reflect India’s maturity as a patent jurisdiction for the digital age. By anchoring CRI examination in judicial reasoning, empirical examples, and stakeholder collaboration, India has fortified its ecosystem for high-tech innovation.

As AI, quantum computing, and blockchain catalyze transformation across industries, these guidelines ensure India’s patent framework is agile, equitable, and globally aligned. The message is clear: creativity and computation, when channeled with technical depth, count. And now that counts in the eyes of the law too.

Author: Dhriti Kawale, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

[1] https://www.ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/images/pdf/CRI/All%20comments/draft1/31.%20ACMD%20-%20Comments%20-%20Draft%20CRI%20Guidelines.pdf

[2] https://www.anandandanand.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Ferid-Allani-patent-application-the-Intellectual-Property-Appellate-Board-grants-a-patent-to-a-c.pdf

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121549025/

[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154732222/

[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118178741/