The jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of exclusions defined under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which was amended in 2002, is currently evolving and developing, paralleling trends observed in other patent jurisdictions. Various approaches to patenting computer-related inventions, including mathematical methods, business methods, algorithms, and computer programmes, are being followed to improve the quality of responses to objections raised during the prosecution of such patent applications. It is invariably seen that the Examiners in India insist upon disclosure of a ‘technical effect’, ‘technical application’ and ‘technical result’ in the patent specification in the context of seeking a patent under Section 3(k).
We may refer to them as the 3T’s of patenting computer-related inventions in India. While closely related, technical effects, technical application and technical results describe distinct aspects of an invention. The primary distinction is that the technical effect is – the how, the technical application is – the what, and the technical results are – the proof. This framework is critical in patent law, where these terms are used to demonstrate an invention’s merit and its eligibility for patent protection.
Attributes and Key Characteristics of the 3T’s of inventions
Let’s first understand the attributes and key characteristics of 3Ts using examples from 3Ts of inventions, and then examine its key role in patenting CRI inventions in India. For instance, the technical effect is crucial to establish the presence of ‘inventive step’ and the technical character of the software invention. The technical application demonstrates the industrial applicability of the invention. The technical results are useful evidence to support the claims of technical effect and overcome objections to obviousness.
Technical Effect of an Invention
Though Section 3(k) does not go beyond stating the bare exclusions, this does not mean that all the exclusions stated therein are absolute. Technical Effect attributes relate to the core functional improvement that a new invention or process provides to a technical system or process. It is the technical problem that is solved or the technological enhancement that is achieved as a result of the said technical effect. However, in the patentability evaluation, the key characteristic of technical effect must be measurable and tangible. It must be going beyond a mere idea or abstract concept. Some examples of such technical effects are- an algorithm that allows a processor to output data faster and more efficiently, or software that reduces the hard-disk access time of a computer, or a new method that improves the efficiency of a hardware component, or faster data processing, or better image quality, or optimised energy use, etc.
Key Attributes of the Technical Application of an Invention
The key attributes of technical application of any computer-related inventions are in their practical use in the specific field or purpose to which the innovation is applied in a real-world situation. The key characteristics of such patent applications would be that they describe and explain how the invention’s technical effect is implemented to solve a day-to-day practical problem. For example, if the invention relates to using a new, more efficient database search strategy (technical effect) in a web browser to provide faster search results (technical application) or if it relates to an improved control system for a robotic arm (technical effect) used in a manufacturing plant to increase assembly line precision (technical application) or it pertains to more effective data compression techniques (technical effect) used in a mobile application to reduce memory usage on a smartphone (technical application).
In all these inventions, inventors describe the real world, the practical use of the invention and its technical effect. The well-known patents in this field are Amazon’s One-Click patent, which allows customers to make purchases with just one click, revolutionising online shopping, and Google’s PageRank patent, which enables the algorithm used by Google to rank web pages, significantly improving search engine functionality. This patent revolutionized practical use of search results to enhance search priorities within the random search results; Uber’s Ride-Matching Algorithm patent facilitates dynamic pairing of passengers with nearby drivers to enhancing choice of vehicle and transportation efficiency; Dropbox’s File Synchronization System patent not only protects the method of syncing but also facilities updating files across multiple devices; Snapchat’s Image Messaging Platform patent covers ephemeral messaging systems that delete content after viewing and so on.
Technical Results: Attributes
The basic attributes of computer-related inventions that produce technical results are that they provide concrete evidence, data, or output that demonstrate the technical effect has been achieved in the technical application. Such results quantify the improvements and demonstrate that the invention functions as claimed. A key characteristic of patent applications for inventions that yield technical results is that they use comparative experimental data to demonstrate those results, especially in complex fields like chemistry, pharmaceuticals, computer science, and AI.
For example, comparative experimental data or benchmarks showing a measurable increase in processing speed or a reduction in memory usage compared to existing methods in computer-related inventions. It may also be noted that in many AI-related inventions, the post-filed evidence and data show that the AI model (technical application) provides a clear improvement in the precision of a robotic system (technical effect).
Legal Implications of 3Ts in the Prosecution of Patent Applications
If we read Section 3(k), it states in plain words that ‘a mathematical or business method or computer programme per se or algorithms’ are not considered inventions within the meaning of the Patents Act 1970. Such inventive activities are not regarded as patentable under Section 3(k), introduced in May 2002. Before 2002, these patents were not granted because they were not considered a manner of manufacture. Section 3(g) specifically excludes a method or process of testing from the definition of an invention, and such methods or processes are not considered patentable in India. Some processes have never been considered patentable subject matter in all patent jurisdictions, such as purely mental processes.
The Indian Patent Office was not an exception. The absence of standards that must apply to Section 3(k) leaves a vacuum for examiners in India, who were particularly adept at handling patent applications involving tangible inventions. In 2017, a comprehensive examination guideline under the heading ‘CRI invention guideline’ was issued, which, to a considerable extent, served as a guiding light for examiners dealing with ever-growing computer-related inventions. These guidelines were revised in 2025 to include the latest judicial rulings.
CRI (Computer Related Inventions) Guidelines, 2025
The CRI Guidelines, 2025, filled the procedural vacuum for examiners in India in examining the patent eligibility of computer-related inventions under Section 3(k). This framework now assists the examiner in sifting patentable subject matter from non-patentable subject matter. This means Section 3(k) leaves enough room for interpretation. The Courts in India have dealt with many patentability issue which lead to establishment of plethora of guiding legal precedents that helps not only in defining the terms like business methods, mathematical methods, algorithms etc. but also affirming exception to patentability or otherwise through leading cases like Electronic Navigation Research Institute (Mathematical method not patentable) decision of IPAB, Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (mere presence of a mathematical formula in a claim would not necessarily render it ‘a mathematical method’ claim), Idemia Identity & Security France (contribution made by a mathematical method to the technical character of an invention must be taken into account).
The courts also ventured into defining the terms ‘computer’ and ‘computer programme’ used in Section 3(k) exclusions and their implications. For example, Ferid Allani vs Union of India (if the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution” it is patentable even though it may be based on a computer program…”); Opentv Inc vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs (the exclusion in respect of business methods is an absolute one and is not restricted by the words ‘per se’ as in the case of computer programs [like Yahoo case IPAB ruling]); Raytheon Company vs Controller General Of Patents & Designs (where the court reiterated the importance of technical effect and/or technical contribution test and categorically barred the requirement of novel hardware and termed it as lacking any legal basis); and Ab Initio Technology LLC vs Assistant Controller Of Patents and Designs (what constitutes technical effect and what does not).
The court also defined the term “algorithms” in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents, providing enough guidelines for the examiners to know what may make an algorithm patentable. The court in this case gave examples of patentable algorithms and related inventions, such as virus-detection software, image processing for digital cameras, machine learning in automobiles, and medical imaging algorithms. This clearly means that inventors should focus on technical effect, and the computer-related inventions must satisfy the judicially created requirement of having a technical solution to a technical problem, showing an impact on hardware or improved system performance (e.g., faster processing, better data compression) to be considered patentable. This leaves the inventions relating to mathematical methods, business methods, or algorithms per se (without a technical effect), or computer programs per se (as mere programs), as non-patentable.
BlackBerry Case
In this recent landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court held that ‘any invention which can increase the capability of a device to such an extent would not be hit by Section 3(k) of the Act.’ [Blackberry Limited vs Controller Of Patents And Designs on Delhi High Court [August 30, 2024]. In this case, the court found the discussion in Terrell on the Law of Patents, 19th Edition (South Asian Edition), which highlights the conditions under which the implementation of computer programs may be deemed patentable as relevant. Accordingly, two types of technical advantage which are attributable to computer programs may suffice for patentability.
The first is where the program solves a problem within the computer itself. The second is where the effect of the program is not merely within the computer but where the beneficial consequences feed into other devices. The court applied this aspect of technical advantage in respect of the present appeal and found that the features of the subject patent application such as cache management for unifying and updating libraries, metadata-only library files for efficient transfer, and dynamic media synchronization, provide technical effects both within the computer (e.g., optimizing storage and retrieval processes) and beyond the computer (e.g., enhancing the functioning of mobile devices, improving media accessibility). In this case, the court emphasises the need for technical advantages that extend beyond the excluded subject matter.
Concluding Remarks
Indian patent law jurisprudence has come a long way while dealing with patent eligibility issues under Section 3(k). If the patent office guideline mandates the examiners to look beyond mere words to identify the inventive concept under two step analysis Test for Algorithms/Business Methods to find that if it’s an abstract idea or concretely implemented with a technical effect, the court ruling in Ferid Allani that If the invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or a “technical contribution” it is patentable even though it may be based on a computer program suggests to look for 3Ts.
The 3Ts, including technical application, technical effect and technical results, in computer-related invention work beyond normal computing. This clearly demonstrates that it is not just a computer program that runs on the computer, but it also reflects how the program changes the useful technical operations of the computer. Such inventions are considered patentable. The decision in BlackBerry went a step further to hold that ‘any invention which can increase the capability of a device to such an extent would not be hit by Section 3(k). This ruling not only allows the patents relating to the program that solves a problem within the computer itself, but also takes it to a level where the effect of the program is not merely within the computer, but where the beneficial consequences feed into other devices. This ruling will change the dynamics of patent eligibility in India. This leaves enough room for such inventions to be considered patent-eligible if claimed technical advantages extend beyond the excluded subject matter. Expert advice, however, would be beneficial for those seeking patents for computer-related inventions in India as well.
Author: DPS Parmar
First Published by: Mondaq here