Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer-related Inventions (CRIs)

On 30th June 2017, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) published Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer-related Inventions (CRIs) that are applicable with immediate effect. The revised guidelines have replaced the Guidelines for Examination of CRIs, published on 19th February, 2016. The revised guidelines are short and precise as compared with the previous versions and have relaxed the criteria for patentability of the CRIs.

The heart of the 2016 guidelines was a three stage test to examine a CRI application, according to which the Examiners may:

  • Properly construe the claim and identify the actual contribution
  • If the contribution lies only in mathematical method, business method or algorithm, deny the claim
  • If the contribution lies in the field of computer programme, check whether it is claimed in conjunction with a novel hardware and proceed to other steps to determine patentability with respect to the invention. The computer programme in itself is never patentable. If the contribution lies solely in the computer programme, deny the claim. If the contribution lies in both the computer programme as well as hardware, proceed to other steps of patentability.

Therefore, the requirement of a novel hardware was apparent under the three step test laid in 2016 guideline. The revised guidelines have however done away with this test. The revised guidelines focus on substance over form and states:

If, in substance, claims in any form such as method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium belong to the said excluded categories, they would not be patentable. Even when the issue is related to hardware/software relation, the expression of the functionality as a method is to be judged on its substance. It is well-established that, in patentability cases, the focus should be on the underlying substance of the invention, not the particular form in which it is claimed. The Patents Act clearly excludes computer programmes per se and the exclusion should not be allowed to be avoided merely by camouflaging the substance of the claim by its wording.

The revised guidelines further discuss determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs. According to the revised guidelines, it is important to ascertain from the nature of the claimed CRI whether it is of a technical nature involving technical advancement as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both, and is not subject to exclusion under Section 3 of the Patents Act.

Further, the sub-section 3(k) excludes mathematical methods or business methods or computer programme per se or algorithms from patentability. Computer programmes are often claimed in the form of algorithms as method claims or system claims with some means indicating the functions of flow charts or process steps. It is well-established that, while establishing patentability, the focus should be on the underlying substance of the invention and not on the particular form in which it is claimed.

What is important is to judge the substance of claims taking whole of the claim together. If any claim in any form such as method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium falls under the said excluded categories, such a claim would not be patentable. However, if in substance, the claim, taken as whole, does not fall in any of the excluded categories, the patent should not be denied.

Hence, along with determining the merit of invention as envisaged under Sections 2(1) (j), (ja) and (ac), the examiner should also determine whether or not they are patentable inventions under Section 3 of the Act.

Thus, it can be inferred that the revised guidelines focus on substance over form instead of novel hardware requirement. That is, while examining an application its substance is considered and a claim is taken as whole, if it does not fall in any of the excluded categories, the Examiner can proceed with other steps to determine patentability with respect to the invention.

Various stake holders associated with the software industry and Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) have been lobbying for such a change. ASSOCHAM trough a communication to the Prime Minister’s Office, urged the Prime Minister to bring out appropriate amendments to the 2016 guidelines and simplify the criteria in pursuance of becoming a leading global player in areas of research and development (R&D) and software products.

In the view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that as the CGPDTM has done away with the requirement of novel hardware, the patentability criteria is eased out. This not only facilitates the patentability of CRIs but also attracts big software MNCs and startups to invest in the area of development of software technologies.

About the Author: Ms. Prigya Arora, Patent Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Can be reached at prigya@iiprd.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five + nineteen =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010