IP Anchor

Introduction The Indian Patent Office has released the Draft Manual of Patent Office Practice & Procedure, Version 4.0 (2026) for stakeholder consideration. The Draft Manual is intended to replace the existing Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, Version 3.0 (2019) and reflects the significant changes that have taken place in Indian patent practice during the intervening years. Official IP India – Patent Office Manuals The revision was perhaps overdue. Since the 2019 Manual, Indian patent practice has undergone substantial changes through amendments to the Patents Rules, particularly the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024 , changes in the institutional framework following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, increasing reliance on electronic processing, and a growing body of judicial decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Draft Manual itself acknowledges these developments. It explains that the Patent Office has undergone significant automation and electronic transformation and that the revision has been undertaken in view of amendments to the Rules, re-engineering of patent procedures and increased automation. Importantly, it also clarifies that the Manual is intended as a practical guide and does not have the force of law. The Draft therefore represents more than an administrative update. It provides an opportunity to examine whether Indian patent prosecution practice has evolved sufficiently to meet the needs of today's applicants, patent professionals, technology companies, research institutions and international associates. This article considers the principal changes and, more importantly, some areas where further clarification could make the Manual more useful in day-to-day patent prosecution. From Version 3.0 to Version 4.0 The 2019 Manual was prepared in an environment materially different from the present one. Since then, several important procedural changes have been introduced. The 2026 Draft continues the broad architecture of the earlier Manual but updates it to reflect current statutory provisions, amended Rules, electronic workflows and judicial developments. One of the most visible structural changes is the creation of a separate…

Artificial Intelligence is moving from being a private productivity tool to becoming part of the institutional machinery of patent examination in India. On 7 August 2026, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks published the Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Examination Procedures . The Guidelines seek to capture the efficiency benefits of AI while preserving confidentiality, independent application of mind, accuracy and accountability in patent examination. The development is significant not because the Guidelines permit AI to decide patent applications, but because they establish a human-in-the-loop model: AI may assist the Examiner or Controller, but it cannot replace the statutory and quasi-judicial responsibility of the officer. From AI Experimentation to Structured Patent Examination Patent examination is particularly suited to selective AI assistance. It involves large volumes of technical documents, classification, prior-art searching, translation, comparison of disclosures and legal research. The Guidelines recognise that AI may assist with tasks such as screening, classification, search, translation support, drafting support, technical comparison and knowledge retrieval. The document distinguishes between public AI tools and private AI tools operating in closed or restricted environments. This distinction is important in patent practice because unpublished patent applications contain commercially sensitive technical information. The policy approach is consistent with India’s broader Responsible AI framework. NITI Aayog’s Responsible AI documents emphasise principles including safety and reliability, privacy and security, transparency and accountability. The Indian Patent Office Guidelines therefore adopt a pragmatic position: AI can improve efficiency, but the examiner must remain responsible for the result. Human Judgment Remains at the Centre The most important principle in the Guidelines is human oversight. The Examiner or Controller remains fully responsible for every official act involving AI. Any AI-assisted output that influences examination must be manually reviewed and validated before adoption. The officer must personally satisfy themselves that the output is correct, relevant and appropriate. This safeguard becomes particularly important when AI is…

A Judicial Roadmap for Distinguishing Mental Acts from Technically Implemented Processes In T-Mobile International AG and Co. KG v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr. , the Delhi High Court has articulated seven judicial guidelines for examining whether a claim is excluded under the mental-act limb of Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court emphasised that claims must be construed in their entirety rather than dissected to isolate an individual mental step. The judgment also separates the Section 3(m) inquiry from novelty and inventive step and clarifies the distinct role of Section 3(k) for computer-implemented subject matter. The Dispute Before the Court The proceedings arose from an appeal by T-Mobile International AG and Co. KG against refusal of Indian Patent Application No. 468/DELNP/2008, titled “Method and Arrangement for optimising the Operational Times and Cell Change Performance of Mobile Terminals.” The application had been refused by the Patent Office under Sections 3(k) and 3(m) of the Patents Act. While considering the appeal, the Court identified a broader difficulty: there were no specific guidelines explaining how an objection under Section 3(m) should be assessed. The Court therefore sought assistance from an Amicus Curiae and, after considering submissions and proposed guidelines, formulated a framework for examination of Section 3(m) objections. The Court directed that these guidelines be placed before the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for appropriate steps within six weeks. What Does Section 3(m) Exclude? Section 3(m) provides that the following are not inventions: “a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game.” The Court examined the statutory language closely. It observed that the use of “or” creates four categories: a mere scheme of performing a mental act, a mere rule of performing a mental act, a mere method of performing a mental act, and a method of playing a game. According to the Court, the word…

Introduction For product designers, manufacturers and businesses commercialising new products, the boundary between copyright and design protection is not merely a matter of legal classification. It can determine whether an IP owner retains an effective remedy against copying. Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957, creates an important boundary between these two regimes. Where a work qualifies as a design capable of registration under the Designs Act, 2000, but remains unregistered, copyright protection in that design can cease once the article to which it is applied is reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process. This is commonly described as the “fifty-copy rule.” The principle has its roots in the statutory scheme and was examined extensively by the Delhi High Court in Microfibres Inc. v. Girdhar & Co. & Anr. The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Cryogas Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Inox India Ltd. , has brought renewed attention to this copyright-design interface, making the subject particularly relevant for contemporary product and engineering businesses. 1. Why copyright and design protection must be distinguished The starting point is the distinction between an original artistic work and a design applied to an article. Section 2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000 broadly concerns features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article and judged solely by the eye. The distinction becomes nuanced where an original drawing, illustration or other artistic work is subsequently adapted for industrial application. Microfibres recognised that an original artistic work and the design derived from it are not necessarily the same subject matter. The Court explained that copyright in the underlying original artistic work can continue even where the industrially applied design becomes subject to the statutory limitations under Section 15. For a product designer, therefore, the question is not simply, “Is this artwork protected by copyright?” The more useful questions are: What exactly is being protected? Has it been…

Understanding the Legislative Intent Behind Section 8 and Rule 12 After the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024. "Have I Furnished False Information?" That was the question my client asked after discovering that one of the corresponding foreign patent applications disclosed in the updated Form 3 had inadvertently been shown as "Pending" , whereas the application had already been refused. The mistake was genuine. The foreign prosecution records had not yet been updated in the applicant's internal database, and the outdated status was carried into the Form 3 filed before the Indian Patent Office. The client was understandably anxious. "Does this mean we have furnished false information under the Patents Act?" At first glance, the answer may appear straightforward. If the information disclosed is incorrect, it may seem natural to conclude that the applicant has furnished false information. Patent law, however, rarely operates through such mechanical reasoning. Whether an incorrect disclosure attracts serious legal consequences depends upon the statutory framework, the purpose underlying the disclosure obligation, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged non-compliance. The law does not assess every mistake in isolation; rather, it evaluates the nature of the error, its materiality, the applicant's conduct, and the overall context in which the disclosure was made. Understanding these distinctions requires us to step back from the facts of a particular case and examine why Section 8 exists in the first place . Only then can we properly appreciate why some errors may justify serious consequences while others may not. The Philosophy Behind Section 8 Every statutory provision has a legislative purpose. Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970, is no exception. Modern inventions are rarely protected in a single jurisdiction. Businesses, universities, research institutions, and individual inventors routinely seek patent protection in multiple countries through national filings or international patent systems. Consequently, several patent offices may examine substantially the same invention, each applying its own patent laws, examination standards, and procedural…

Can an Incorrect Disclosure Under Section 8 Jeopardise Your Indian Patent Application? A Practical Commentary on Rule 12 After the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024. A Telephone Call That Made Me Pause During my years of practice as a patent professional, I have realised that the most thought-provoking legal questions rarely arise in courtrooms. They arise during ordinary conversations with clients. Recently, I received one such telephone call. The client sounded anxious. "I think I have made a mistake in Form 3." I asked him what had happened. He explained that his company had recently filed the updated Form 3 before the Indian Patent Office in compliance with the amended Rules. While reviewing its global patent portfolio a few days later, the company discovered that one of the corresponding foreign patent applications had already been refused before the updated Form 3 was filed. However, in the Form 3 submitted before the Indian Patent Office, that application had inadvertently been shown as 'Pending' . There was no attempt to conceal the foreign application. The application number was correctly disclosed. The country was correctly identified. Only the status had been recorded incorrectly. Then came the inevitable question: "Have we furnished false information before the Controller? Can this mistake affect our Indian patent application?" It is an important question. Indeed, it is a question that every patent applicant — whether a startup, university, research institution, multinational corporation, or individual inventor — should ask. Why This Question Matters More After the 2024 Amendments The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, which came into force on 15 March 2024, introduced one of the most significant procedural reforms relating to Section 8 of the Patents Act. For years, applicants were required to keep the Indian Patent Office continuously informed about developments concerning corresponding foreign patent applications. The amended Rules have substantially simplified this framework. However, simplification of the procedure should never be confused with relaxation of the obligation to…

While Form 3 is relatively short, it is a statutory declaration provided to the Indian Patent Office in accordance with Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 and Rule 12 of the Patents Rules, 2003. The information given is part of the official prosecution file and must thus be prepared with the same care as the patent specification itself. The message to all applicants is clear: Give Form 3 the same attention to detail and the same checking and rechecking as the patent specification. A few minutes spent on checking the status of matching overseas applications before filing Form 3 may save unwanted explanations, procedural complexities or disagreements at a later stage. Form 3: Procedural form or statutory declaration? One of the most important modifications that has been brought in is the relaxation of the disclosure requirements under Section 8 of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Rule 12 of the Patents Rules, 2003, by the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, having effect from 15 March 2024. Most applicants think the Form 3 is filed only once. The amended Rule 12, in practice, provides for three different places where an applicant may be required to provide information. 1. Initial Form 3, Regulation 12(1A) All applicants are required to file the Statement and Undertaking in Form 3, within six months from the date of filing the patent application in India. The first filing is to notify the Indian Patent Office regarding the comparable foreign patent applications for the same or essentially the same innovation. 2. Form 3 as amended Rule 12(2) The 2024 amendments have also made compliance easy by requesting applicants to submit an updated Form 3 within three months from the date of issuance of the First Examination Report (FER). This revision significantly decreases the compliance burden compared to the previous regime under which applicants had to keep the Controller informed of the status of matching overseas applications throughout prosecution.…

Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing virtually every profession, and the practice of intellectual property (IP) is no exception. Patent attorneys, patent agents, trademark specialists, IP advocates, in-house counsel, innovators, entrepreneurs, and universities are increasingly examining how AI might increase efficiency, enhance decision-making, and provide better client service. For the past few years, one question has kept surfacing in the IP community: will AI replace IP professionals? The honest answer is NO, AI is not replacing IP professionals; it is changing how they work. The practice of intellectual property law requires legal analysis, technical understanding, strategic thinking, business judgment, and most importantly professional responsibility. AI can assist with a lot of tedious, information-heavy activities, but human experience is still needed for interpreting the law, advising clients, managing risks, and making strategic decisions. In this essay, we address the importance of AI in intellectual property practice, where it adds value and where it does not, and recommended practices for responsible adoption. Why AI is important in Intellectual Property practice? Those working in intellectual property domain handle a mountain of data. For Examples, a single search for patentability can include the examination of hundreds of patent documents. Patent prosecution involves analysis of examination reports, previous art, legal precedents, and patent office practice. Trademark professionals assess conflicting marks, classifications, and business hazards. Law companies also devote significant effort to administrative duties, including document drafting, deadline management, client communication, and knowledge management. AI can free up time spent on mundane tasks so skilled workers can spend more time on higher-value activities that require legal judgment and technological understanding. Areas Where Artificial Intelligence Can Assist IP Professionals Patents Searching: AI-enabled search tools can help patent professionals in locating relevant prior art, discovering analogous inventions, recognizing technical concepts, not just keywords, proposing more search strategies organizing search results. Nevertheless, Novelty, inventive step and legal relevance need to be assessed by a human. Drafting a patent: AI…

The recent Indian Patent Office Journal offer more than a snapshot of filings—it reveals a structural shift in how innovation is being created, protected, and strategically positioned in India. The Rise of AI-Led Innovation One trend stands out unequivocally: Artificial Intelligence is no longer a standalone domain—it is an enabling layer across industries. From healthcare diagnostics and climate forecasting to agriculture and power electronics, AI is being deeply integrated into real-world systems. What’s particularly striking is the convergence of AI with healthcare, where inventions are focused on early detection, personalized treatment, and adaptive systems. This reflects a broader transition from theoretical AI models to applied, problem-solving technologies. Universities Are the New IP Powerhouses—But Strategy Must Trump Volume Traditionally, patent filings in India were dominated by corporates. That narrative is changing rapidly. The latest journal reflects a strong surge in filings from academic institutions, many of which are not just filing isolated patents but building clusters of related inventions. This indicates a welcome shift—universities are beginning to adopt portfolio-driven IP strategies, aligning research with commercialization and long-term value creation. However, this momentum comes with an important caveat. There is a growing risk that patent filings become volume-driven—either to meet institutional targets or to secure government funding. Such an approach, if not carefully managed, can dilute the quality and enforceability of patents, leading to portfolios that look strong on paper but lack real strategic or commercial value. The real opportunity for universities lies not in filing more patents—but in filing better patents. This means: Focusing on core, defensible innovations, not peripheral or incremental variations Building coherent patent families around a central technological breakthrough Ensuring industry relevance and commercialization pathways Aligning IP strategy with long-term research strengths, not short-term incentives In essence, the next phase of India’s academic innovation ecosystem will be defined not by the number of patents filed—but by the quality, depth, and strategic intent behind those filings. Smarter Drafting in…

Many startups make a costly mistake by assuming that obtaining a patent gives them complete legal protection to sell their product. This misunderstanding can lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Two Distinct Legal Concepts Patentability and Freedom to Operate (FTO) are separate legal assessments that serve different purposes: Patentability determines whether your invention is new and non-obvious compared to existing knowledge. It asks: "Can you get a patent for this invention?" Freedom to Operate examines whether your product might infringe on someone else's existing patents. It asks: "Can you legally sell this product without violating others' patent rights?" Having your own patent confirms your invention is novel, but it doesn't protect you from infringing other patents. Think of it this way: getting a patent is like receiving a certificate of originality, not a license to ignore others' rights. Real-World Legal Implications Indian courts demonstrate this distinction clearly. They focus on whether a product falls within the scope of existing patent claims, not on whether the accused party developed their product independently. The 2015 case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. illustrates this principle. Merck sued Glenmark over an anti-diabetic drug compound. The Delhi High Court examined whether Glenmark's product matched the claims in Merck's patent instead of considering whether Glenmark independently developed their version. The court ruled in Merck's favor, showing that independent development doesn't prevent infringement. Common Startup Misconceptions Startups often fall into these traps: "We have our own patent, so we're safe" - Your patent doesn't shield you from others' patents. "We developed this independently" - Independent creation doesn't excuse infringement. "Our patent attorney said it's patentable, so we can sell it" - Patentability approval doesn't equal FTO clearance. The reality is more complex. Multiple patents can cover similar technologies. Your product might infringe older, broader patents even if you've secured your own patent. A patentability opinion from your attorney isn't the same…

One of the recurring concerns I hear from innovators and businesses is this: “Our patent application has been pending for years—what can we realistically do next?” While the Indian patent framework under the Patents Act, 1970 provides a robust structure for examination, in practice, processing timelines can sometimes vary significantly depending on multiple factors such as technical field, workload distribution, and administrative dynamics. At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge the significant rise in patent filings in India over recent years, which has naturally increased operational demands on the system. So, where does that leave applicants—especially those who want to avoid immediate litigation? Is approaching the Court the only option? Not necessarily. While writ remedies remain available in cases of exceptional delay, there are several structured, non-litigation approaches that can often help bring attention to long-pending matters. Practical Steps That Can Help Ø Consider Escalation at the Administrative Level Where appropriate, matters may be escalated to the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks with supporting documentation. This can sometimes facilitate internal review. Ø Use IPO Open House Help Desk (Ticket-Based Support) The Intellectual Property Office provides an Open House Help Desk system where stakeholders can raise tickets for issue resolution. · Register using your email address · For payment/CBR issues, include: o Transaction ID / Temporary Number / User ID / Time of payment · For application-specific queries, use the same email ID linked to the IP application · For urgent e-filing issues, select the relevant category and optionally provide your contact number in the remarks section This creates a traceable support request and often enables faster coordination. Ø Participate in IPO Open House Sessions (Direct Interaction) An important initiative—launched under the guidance of Hon’ble CIM and led by Prof (Dr.) Unnat P. Pandit—CGPDTM RoC&GI, DPIIT MoC&I —enables direct engagement with stakeholders through structured Open House sessions. Schedule: · Mondays & Wednesdays → Patents…

What becomes of a divisional patent when the parent is under revocation or has already fallen? The natural answer, often delivered with undue confidence, is that the divisional must inevitably collapse. However, the law, as it has evolved, is more nuanced and considerably more accommodating. Independence with an inherited origin A divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970, is neither a mere appendage nor a fully detached creation. It occupies a carefully balanced position. On the one hand, it is prosecuted, examined, and potentially granted as a separate application. However, it draws its legitimacy from the parent specification. This duality is crucial because procedural independence does not negate substantive lineage. Courts in India, particularly the Delhi High Court, have consistently resisted simplistic formulations. A divisional does not automatically perish with the parent; yet it cannot escape the foundational discipline imposed by that parent. From formalism to substance Early judicial thinking appeared to tie divisional claims tightly to the parent’s claims. Decisions such as Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Controller of Patents emphasized that a divisional must be traceable to what was explicitly claimed. This approach, while doctrinally tidy, risked elevating drafting form over inventive substance. A significant recalibration came with the Division Bench ruling in Syngenta Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court acknowledged that the true measure of plurality lies not merely in the claims but in the disclosure of the complete specification. In doing so, it restored a degree of flexibility that is both doctrinally sound and practically necessary. Plurality revisited: beyond the claims The recognition that multiple inventions may be embedded within the specification—even if they are not perfectly reflected in the claims—has profound implications. It allows applicants, and more importantly, litigants, to argue that a divisional is anchored in what the inventor actually disclosed, rather than what was imperfectly captured at the claim-drafting stage. This shift does not dilute the standards.…

Indian patent law stands out for its strong focus on ensuring patents are actually "worked" or put to practical use. While many countries treat patents mainly as private business rights, India has always seen them as tools for public good and industrial progress. This perspective is built into the Patents Act of 1970, especially Section 83, which makes clear that patents aren't meant to simply create import monopolies. Instead, patented inventions should drive technological advancement, improve public access, and boost industrial development within India. Historical Context The roots trace back to India's economic thinking after independence. During colonial times, many foreign patent holders secured patents in India but never manufactured locally. They imported products at steep prices while keeping Indian industry technologically dependent and commercially limited. The Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar Committee thoroughly studied this problem. Their 1959 report became the blueprint for India's current patent system. The Committee understood that while patents should reward innovation, they must also deliver real benefits to society in exchange for the monopoly the government grants. The core principle was straightforward: patents shouldn't sit unused. They need to be put to commercial use in ways that serve the public good. This philosophy shaped India's patent working requirements, compulsory licensing rules, and the mandate to file working statements using Form 27. Understanding "Patent Working" Working essentially means commercially using a patented invention within India. This can involve manufacturing, licensing, supplying the Indian market, or other practical applications. The main goal is ensuring public demand gets reasonably met, products stay accessible, and patent rights don't simply block competitors. Does this Mean Local Manufacturing is Required? This question sparks ongoing debate in Indian patent law. Traditionally, Indian policy strongly supported domestic manufacturing because it encouraged technology transfer, job creation, industrial capacity building, and self-sufficiency. Today's global business environment has made this more complex. Current understanding suggests that importing can count as working in certain situations. However, minimal…

India’s software patent debate is not really about code alone; it is about the boundary between a genuine technical invention and an abstract mental or commercial concept dressed in software language. Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, is the central doctrinal filter. It excludes “computer programme per se,” along with algorithms, business methods, and mathematical methods; however, Indian practice has never treated that exclusion as mechanically absolute. The Patent Office’s CRI guidelines and later judicial commentary show that the real inquiry is whether the claim makes a technical contribution, rather than merely automating an idea. This is why software patents in India remain such a difficult and nuanced subject: the statute, the examination practice, and the case law all pull the analysis toward substance, not labels. 1. The legislative starting point: Section 3(k) as a patentability filter Section 3(k) sits within the Patents Act’s list of matters that are not inventions. In practical terms, it works as a substantive screen at the very threshold of patentability. The Patent Office and later judicial discussion have treated this provision as a legislative choice to prevent monopolies over abstract schemes, especially where the claim is framed broadly as software logic, a commercial workflow, or a mathematical formula. This is why a startup cannot simply present an app idea and call it a patentable invention. The claim must demonstrate something more concrete: a technical effect, technical advancement, or a functional interaction with hardware or another technical system. This doctrinal line is what makes Section 3(k) distinct from ordinary novelty or inventive-step analysis. 2. Why the words “computer programme per se” matter so much The phrase “per se” is a small expression that carries the biggest interpretative burden. If Parliament had excluded all computer programs without qualification, the provision would have been much harsher. By adding “per se,” the legislature signaled that not every computer-related invention should be rejected merely because it uses a…

The Problem That Preceded the Guidelines To understand why the CRI Guidelines matter, one must first appreciate the structural tension that necessitated them. Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes from patent protection "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms." The provision is terse, deceptively simple in its phrasing, and yet enormously consequential in its application because it does not, and was never designed to, tell an examiner how to draw the line between a computer programme that merely automates a process and an invention that deploys software to achieve a demonstrable technological result. This interpretive gap was manageable when computing was peripheral to industrial innovation. Once software became the primary medium through which advancements in telecommunications, data processing, cybersecurity, networked systems, and artificial intelligence occurred, the gap turned into a fault line. Examination practice at the Indian Patent Office ("IPO") grew inconsistent — some applications were rejected the moment a claim disclosed software-related functionality; others were assessed on the basis of claim language rather than any principled inquiry into technical substance. For inventors, startups, and patent counsel, the outcome of prosecution has become difficult to predict. The CRI Guidelines were developed to address this need for coherence. Their function was never to override the statute or quietly reintroduce patentability for excluded subject matter. The objective was narrower and more practical: to give examiners a workable doctrinal vocabulary and a structured method of analysis so that Section 3(k) would be applied consistently rather than through reflexive formalism. The 2013 Draft: First Principles, Incomplete Architecture The 2013 draft Guidelines represented the IPO's first serious attempt to articulate how computer-related inventions should be assessed under Indian patent law. Their significance lies less in what they resolve than in what they introduce. Most critically, the 2013 draft displaced the assumption, prevalent in examination practice, that the presence of software in a claim was itself sufficient to…

Introduction In this knowledge economy driven by innovations, Indian inventors and startups are increasingly looking outside the country for patent protection. Filing patent applications abroad has become a regular business strategy, whether the goal is to break into the US market, to attract foreign investment or to build a global intellectual property portfolio. But many innovators are unaware that Indian patent law has a unique compliance requirement before certain foreign patent filings can be made. Under the Patents Act, 1970, a person resident in India is not always in a position to file patent application as a first filing outside India. Many a time, a Foreign Filing License (FFL) is needed which is prior consent from the Indian Patent Office. The requirement is often regarded as a mere procedural formality, nevertheless it has significant legal consequences and may affect the validity of patent rights. Therefore, it is important for inventors, startups, research institutions, and patent professionals to have a clear understanding of this framework. Why Indian Inventors Can’t Always Patent Abroad First India, unlike some other jurisdictions where inventors have the freedom to select the country of first filing, has a legislative mechanism that regulates the foreign patent filings of its residents. This is justified on the grounds of national security. Some inventions may include technologies with defense, strategic, or sensitive implications. Such inventions have to be made available to the scrutiny of the Indian authorities before they are disclosed abroad through a patent application. This policy goal also sheds light on why the law focuses on the residence of the inventor as opposed to nationality. The foreign filing restrictions may extend to an inventor who is a resident of India even if the applicant is a multinational corporation or the intended filing is in a foreign jurisdiction. Companies with globally dispersed teams and startups that employ inventors in India should consider the need for an FFL carefully when beginning…

Introduction Among the key considerations governing the patentability of computer-related inventions (CRIs) in India, the concept of "technical effect" has emerged as the most consequential interpretive tool. Although the phrase does not appear in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, it now forms the central standard by which the Indian Patent Office and the courts determine whether a software-based invention constitutes a patentable technological contribution or merely a computer programme per se. Section 3(k), as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, excludes from patentability "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms." However, the rigid dichotomy between software and hardware is no longer adequate in the context of modern technology, where software is deeply integrated into technical systems producing identifiable physical and technical outcomes. Indian patent law has consequently evolved to examine whether an invention makes a real technical contribution beyond the excluded subject matter. Origins and Comparative Influences The technical effect doctrine did not originate in Indian statute. It evolved through international jurisprudence and examination practice as patent offices worldwide sought to distinguish between inventions that merely automated existing processes and those that produced a tangible technical outcome. The European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal articulated the foundational principle in T 208/84 (Vicom), holding that a computer-implemented invention may be patentable where it has a "further technical effect" beyond the ordinary physical interaction between software and hardware. In the United Kingdom, the Court of Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd EWCA Civ 1371and Symbian Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] developed related frameworks focused on the technical contribution of the claimed invention. A significant 2024 Delhi High Court judgment (August 30, 2024) further clarified technical effect, quoting "any invention which enhances the capability of a device beyond a mere algorithm or business method is not barred under Section 3(k)" These approaches influenced successive versions of the Indian Patent Office's Guidelines for…

In India, the patent system is governed by the Patents Act, 1970. The Act comprises 22 Chapters and 163 Sections including replead sections, but it can be viewed as a logical path to take an invention from an idea to a legally protected and commercially valuable asset. The infographic below breaks down the journey into seven simple steps, making the law easy to understand for inventors, entrepreneurs, students, researchers, and anyone with an interest in innovation. 1. Principles of Patent Law in General The first step is the basic principles of patent protection. It explains what a patent is, and enumerates the types of inventions that are not patentable in India. One of the most important provisions is the one provided in Section 3 of the Act excluding certain subject matter from being patentable. These exclusions include, inter alia, mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs as such, and traditional knowledge, known process and chemical compound, diagnosis methods. These exclusions are generally the first part of call for anyone looking to patent an invention in India. 2. Patent Application Filing The application process begins as soon as an invention is believed to be patentable. This stage deals with important issues like who can file an application, preparation of provisional and/or complete specifications, priority dates, and disclosure requirements. A key part of the process is drafting patent specification that provides detailed description of the invention to be protected. The degree of protection ultimately granted depends very much on how clear and complete the description of the invention is. A well-drafted specification is the foundation of a strong and enforceable patent. 3. Publication, Examination, and Assessment of Patentability Once a patent application is filed, it is typically published. The purpose of publication is to make information about the invention available to the public and to promote transparency. Publication of a patent application alerts innovators, competitors, and the public to the existence of the…

Introduction Few patent cases have shaped Indian software patent jurisprudence as much as Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019). Prior to this judgment, several applications for computer-related inventions (CRIs) were being frequently denied under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, on the ground that they pertained to software or computer programs. The Delhi High Court judgment changed the examination scenario completely by making it clear that Section 3(k) does not exclude any inventions based on software. Instead, the Court stressed that inventions showing a technical effect or a technical contribution may be patentable even if executed by means of computer programs. For patent attorneys, agents, and examiners, as well as for startups and technology enterprises, Ferid Allani continues to be one of the most important judicial authorities determining the patentability of software and digital developments in India. The Facts: A Patent Application Caught in the Section 3(k) Debate The issue concerned a patent application for a “Method and Device for Accessing Information Sources and Services on the Web” filed by a Tunisian inventor, Ferid Allani. The application was filed through the PCT procedure into the Indian national phase and claimed priority from December 2000. The invention relates to accessing and managing information available through web-based systems. Indian patent practice was still finding its feet on software-related ideas at the time. Thus, the Patent Office raised concerns under Section 3(k), which prohibits “a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms” from patentability. The application was examined and amended a couple of times. The Patent Office, however, held that the invention was primarily a computer program and consequently fell under the statutory exclusion. The controversy subsequently went to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and thereafter to the Delhi High Court. The case therefore raised a basic jurisprudential question: Does the presence of software per se render an innovation unpatentable? Why the Patent Office and…

Consumers tend to see the look of a product before they see the technical features. The sleek shape of a smartphone, the characteristic shape of a chair, the attractive design of a bottle, or the stylish look of a car can influence the purchasing choices in a significant way. Businesses spend a lot of time and money developing attractive products, and the law acknowledges the worth of such creativity. In India, the Designs Act, 2000 (" the Act") allows legal protection for visual features of products. Design protection is not the same as patents. Patents protect the function of an invention, whereas design registration protects the appearance of a product. The Act aims to foster innovation in industrial design by granting exclusive rights to creators of new and original designs. Understanding the basic principles of this law is important not only for designers and manufacturers but also for startups, entrepreneurs and consumers who deal with innovative products on a daily basis. What exactly is a “Design” under the law? One of the most important concepts in the Act is the concept of "design". The law protects features such as shape, configuration, pattern, ornamentation and arrangement of lines or colours applied to an article. The key thing is that these features have to be attractive only to the eye. The essence of design protection is the appearance of a product, not its function. For example, the shape of a perfume bottle, the ornamental pattern of a ceramic tile, or the shape of a lamp, may be eligible for protection. The Act does not, however, protect mechanical functions and engineering principles. A feature that exists only because it performs a technical function is generally outside the scope of design protection. Trademarks, logos and artistic works protected by copyright law are likewise not included in the definition of a design. This difference is a reflection of the legislator’s intention to protect aesthetic creativity…

In OneEmpower Pte. Ltd. v. Controller of Patents & Designs (2023), the Delhi High Court revisited a question that has shaped Indian software and business-method patent practice for over two decades: where exactly does a 'business method' end and a technical innovation begin under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970? The Court's approach signalled a more nuanced, technology-aware reading of the exclusion — one that looks past the label of the invention to its underlying technical contribution. For applicants working on fintech platforms, workflow automation, digital marketplaces, logistics optimisation and enterprise software, the decision offers a clearer framework for arguing that a computer-implemented invention is not a business method 'as such', but a technical solution to a technical problem. This case note walks through the facts, the statutory context, the reasoning applied by the Court, and the practical implications for drafting claims and responding to Section 3(k) objections in India.