What's New in the Revised 2025 CRI Guidelines? (Part 1)

The Story So Far

India’s software patent journey began in 1999 when Parliament introduced Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 (“the Act”) through the Second Amendment Bill for the Act (executed in 2002) barring “mathematical, business methods, computer programs or algorithms” from patent protection. This was added to the Patent Act in 2002 with the crucial suffix “Per Se,” suggesting computer programs with genuine technical applications might still be patentable.

The government attempted to clarify the situation in 2004, through Ordinance, by creating exceptions for computer programs with “technical application to industry or combination with hardware.” However, certain opposition led to the abandonment of these changes in 2005, reverting to the original restrictive position.

Despite stagnant legislation, the Patent Office provided guidance through manual updates. The 2008 Draft Manual distinguished between “Software Per Se” and “Software having technical application in industry.” The 2010-2011 revisions further instructed examiners to look for technical elements in addition to computer programs.

Subsequently, by 2013, the Patent Office introduced India’s first Draft Computer Related Inventions Guidelines (CRI) to bring uniformity to patent examination practices. These guidelines clarified that business methods, mathematical methods, and algorithms are not patentable while introducing “technical effect” and “technical advancement” as examination criteria. However, they required computer programs to integrate with hardware and mandated novel hardware for patentability. This restrictive novel hardware requirement drew criticism, ultimately leading to revision of the guidelines in 2015.

The 2015 Guidelines addressed the 2013 version’s overly restrictive approach by introducing a flexible framework of examining claims “as a whole.” The 2015 version established that computer programs demonstrating industrial applicability should not be denied patents. The new guidelines introduced a six-pronged test for technical advancement, allowing novel computer programs on known hardware if they produce further technical effects. While this was a more permissive approach, the guidelines were put in abeyance within months for reasons not known and thus was revised again in 2016.

The 2016 Guidelines reverted to a restrictive approach similar to the 2013 version, introducing a three-stage test for examining CRI applications. The guidelines emphasized that computer programs “in themselves” are never patentable and claims lying solely in computer programs should be denied, as contributions were required in both computer programs and hardware. Despite providing 15 illustrative examples of non-patentable claims, stakeholders found the approach unbalanced and overly restrictive.

The 2017 Revised Guidelines modified the 2016 version’s restrictive provisions while maintaining core examination principles. Key changes include removing specific examples of non-industrial applicability, eliminating detailed sufficiency requirements for system claims, and removing explicit algorithm references. The revised guidelines also deleted the three-stage test and all 15 illustrative examples of non-patentable claims. These modifications suggested a move toward less prescriptive guidance while maintaining statutory exclusions under Section 3(k) of the Act.

The New 2025 CRI Guidelines

However, the 2017 guidelines lacked detailed procedure and examination criteria for CRI’s. In this year (2025), after receiving comments and suggestions for its two draft revisions, the IPO introduced the 2025 Guidelines that addressed these limitations of the 2017 guidelines. These include:

I. Terms/Definition

While the 2017 Guidelines drew terms and definitions from the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary and relevant statutes, including the Patents Act, Information Technology Act, and Copyright Act, the Draft 2025 Guidelines retain these sources but add judicial interpretations for key terms-like “Algorithm” and “Per Se” are now defined based on Para 25 of Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, and dictionary sources have been expanded to include the Cambridge Dictionary alongside Oxford.

2. Legal Provisions for CRIs

While the 2017 Guidelines only provided statutory definitions from Section 2 of the Act, for “invention, inventive step, capable of industrial application, and new invention,” along with explicit exclusions under Section 3(k) to 3(o) of the Act for CRIs, the 2025 Guidelines retain these definitions (excluding “new invention“) and add important clarifications. The new guidelines emphasize interpretation of “Per Se” through the 2002 Amendment Bill and highlight through recent court cases like Ferid Allani vs. Union of India and Microsoft Technology Licensing vs Assistant Controller of Patents that inventions normally excluded under Section 3(k) of the Act can still be patentable if they show “technical effect, technical contribution or technical solution to technical problem.” The 2025 Guidelines also clarify when business methods, mathematical methods, and algorithms can be considered patentable, through judgements including OpenTV Inc vs Controller Of Patents, Microsoft Technology Licensing and Blackberry Limited vs Assistant Controller.

III. Examination Procedure Guidelines

While the examination procedure remains the same, the 2025 Guidelines are more detailed, with examples and explanations. For instance:

Novelty: While it’s without a doubt that both the 2017 and 2025 Guidelines define “novelty” as the foremost requirement for determining patentability of any invention and follow various provisions of the Act and Rules, and procedures laid out in chapter 08.03.02 of the Manual. The 2025 Guidelines expand this framework by adding the “Seven Stambh” approach, a structured methodology for novelty assessment, as defined under (Para 87-88) of Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd.
Inventive Step: The 2025 Guidelines maintain the same definition and approach for inventive step as the 2017 Guidelines. Both versions rely on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd. and the Delhi High Court’s F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd. for assessing inventiveness through the established 5-step analysis approach. This methodology was recently reaffirmed in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd., confirming continuity in how inventive steps are evaluated.
Industrial Applicability: Industrial applicability requires that an invention be capable of being made or used in industry, with the patent specification disclosing practical application and concrete benefits derived from the description, coupled with common general knowledge. The 2025 Guidelines retain the same definition and requirements for industrial applicability as the 2017 Guidelines, with no changes.
Sufficiency of Disclosure: While the 2017 Guidelines defined sufficiency of disclosure primarily in terms of the disclosure of “what” the invention is and “how” it is to be performed, the 2025 Guidelines explain sufficiency not just as a statutory requirement but as a tool that fosters technological progress, public access to knowledge, and fair competition. The scope of expansion can be seen as follows:

- Fully and Particularly (What): The content under this subheading in both 2017 and 2025 Guidelines remains broadly similar in technical requirements. However, the 2025 Guidelines improve the language and logical flow, replacing vague phrases like “together with their modes/means of implementation” with “along with their implementing mechanism.”

- Best Method of Performing the Invention (How): The 2025 guidelines retain the requirement of describing the best method with suitable illustrations while introducing a new CRI-specific caution against “camouflaged solutions.” They now address the common issue where applicants disguise speculative ideas or problem statements as actual inventive solutions. This addition emphasizes ensuring applicants genuinely disclose the novel and inventive aspect in sufficient detail. This warning was absent in the 2017 Guidelines.

Claims: Both 2017 and 2025 Guidelines require that claims be clear, succinct, fairly based on the disclosure, and evaluated on substance rather than form, especially for CRIs.
Form and Substance: Both 2017 and 2025 Guidelines require assessment of CRI based on substance, not form, focusing on what the invention does rather than how it’s described. The 2025 Guidelines, in addition, state that claims for any system or method can be granted independently if supported by the specification, removing confusion and providing greater certainty in applying Section 3(k) of the Act.
Means and Functions: Both 2017 and 2025 Guidelines require that “means” in CRI claims must have structural features disclosed in the specification. The 2017 Guidelines expected physical constructional features but lacked clarity on sufficient support. The 2025 Guidelines now explicitly allow hardware, firmware, or software modules as corresponding structure if clearly described in the specification.

The updated guidelines also introduce explicit references to Section 10(4) of the Act by quoting its four specific clauses, whereas the 2017 version implied these requirements without directly quoting the section.

The guidelines also address subject matter and new inventions, which can be read in part two of this post.