CRI Guidelines 2025 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Paragraph 3.5 of the CRI Guidelines 2025 gathers nine passages from High Court rulings under the heading "Recent jurisprudence". The Office uses them to show how courts have read the four limbs of section 3(k), and the later examination steps in paragraph 4 are built on them.
Paragraph 3.5 cites nine rulings of the Delhi and Madras High Courts (3.5.1 to 3.5.9). Four ideas run through them: technical effect or technical contribution rescues a computer programme claim; the business method bar is absolute; a formula in a claim is not by itself a mathematical method; and an algorithm needs implementation that changes something beyond instructions. The Guidelines are the Patent Office's guidance and do not have the force of law; the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003 as now in force prevail.
The Office revises its guidelines, so check the current version on ipindia.gov.in. For the opening paragraphs of the Guidelines see the scope and the four limbs of section 3(k). If a section 3(k) objection has already reached you, a patent objection reply can use these rulings directly.
How the Guidelines present the rulings
Paragraph 3.5 says the rulings are given to show how the law has evolved, that the list is non-exhaustive, and that a longer list of names sits in Annexure II. Paragraph 1.5 adds that the case laws are intended for interpreting the Act and are dynamic by nature. So the examiner is not bound to the nine; and you are not limited to them. If you rely on a ruling in a reply, read the current full text, because a later judgment can narrow or extend it.
The nine rulings, one line each
The table below is TaxClue's own summary of what each ruling is cited for, as cited in the Guidelines. Names are printed as the Guidelines give them.
| Para | Ruling as cited in the Guidelines | Limb it concerns | The point the Guidelines draw |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5.1 | Ferid Allani v Union of India | Computer programme per se | Offices worldwide test on technical effect and technical contribution; a programme-based invention showing either can be patentable |
| 3.5.2 | Microsoft Technology Licensing v Assistant Controller (Delhi, May 2023) | Computer programme per se | A solution at the level of cookies and two-factor authentication sits closer to the core of network technology than to the user interface |
| 3.5.3 | OpenTV Inc v Controller | Business method | In India "per se" qualifies only the computer programme limb, so the business method bar is read as absolute; the question is whether the application addresses a business or administrative problem |
| 3.5.4 | Microsoft Technology Licensing v Assistant Controller (Madras, July 2024) | Mathematical method | A mathematical method is an approach to a mathematical problem; a formula in a claim does not by that fact alone make it a mathematical method claim |
| 3.5.5 | Raytheon Company v Controller General | Computer programme per se | The examiner asks for technical contribution or effect; a demand for novel hardware has no basis in law |
| 3.5.6 | Microsoft Technology Licensing v Assistant Controller (Delhi, April 2024) | Computer programme per se | Implemented on a general-purpose computer, the invention must give a specific and credible technical effect beyond ordinary computing |
| 3.5.7 | Microsoft Technology Licensing v Assistant Controller (Madras, July 2024) | Computer programme per se | A technical effect on the system's functioning, or a technical solution to a technical problem not limited to a particular application or data set, overcomes the exclusion |
| 3.5.8 | Ab Initio Technology v Assistant Controller | Computer programme per se | A technical effect can lie in an input method that lets the processor give faster, more efficient output, beyond the usual user interface |
| 3.5.9 | BlackBerry Limited v Assistant Controller | Algorithm | Pure instructions that decide flow, without substantial change in the hardware, are not patentable; if implemented through software that produces a technical effect, the implementation is what counts |
Notice that four of the nine entries carry the same applicant name, in different courts and on different dates. Check the date in your own citation so that you cite the one you mean.
Short quotations the Guidelines carry
Three phrases are worth remembering because examiners echo them.
- On business methods, paragraph 3.5.3 quotes the Delhi High Court as saying the exclusion "is an absolute one and is not restricted by the words 'per se'".
- On hardware, paragraph 3.5.5 quotes the same Court on novel hardware as "a higher standard which lacks any basis in law".
- On algorithms, paragraph 3.5.9 stresses that the inventive feature "would have to be the implementation and not the algorithm itself".
What each line of cases means for the applicant
Computer programme per se. Six of the nine entries (3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7, 3.5.8) deal with this limb, and they agree on a common test: show a technical effect or contribution. The Guidelines turn this into a four-step assessment, which is explained in the article on computer programme per se. In a reply, tie the technical effect to the claim's features, not to the description alone.
Business method. OpenTV is the hard one. Because the Court read the bar as absolute and said the technical-effect analysis used by UK and European offices does not apply squarely in India, an applicant cannot rescue a business method by showing a technical gloss. The asked question is whether the application addresses a business or administrative problem and gives a solution for it.
Mathematical method. The Madras ruling is the applicant's friend: a formula appearing in a claim does not end the discussion. The examiner must look at what the claim as a whole does.
Algorithm. BlackBerry puts the weight on implementation and enablement. A claim written as a set of policies or flow instructions will fail; a claim that recites how the instructions are implemented in coded software, with a technical effect, can be tested like any other computer programme claim.
Using the rulings in a reply to an objection
- Identify which limb the examiner has invoked.
- Pick the ruling in the table that speaks to that limb.
- Point to the claim feature that matches the ruling's test, such as the hardware change, the network-level step or the implemented sequence.
- Add the technical problem and the technical effect from your description, with page and paragraph references.
- Remember that the statute governs; the rulings explain it.
Our team follows this sequence when a section 3(k) objection arrives.
Need help with a section 3(k) objection?
If your first examination report cites section 3(k), the reply should match the limb the examiner has invoked and the ruling that fits it. We can review the objection and the specification and frame the reply. See patent objection reply, and read how the Guidelines examine novelty and inventive step before you file.
Key takeaways
- Paragraph 3.5 cites nine High Court rulings and says the list is non-exhaustive.
- Technical effect or contribution is the common test for computer programme claims.
- The business method bar is absolute in India, as cited from OpenTV.
- A formula in a claim does not make it a mathematical method by itself.
- For algorithms, the inventive feature has to be the implementation.
Read next
- CRI Guidelines 2025: scope, terms and the four limbs of section 3(k)
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3: novelty and inventive step
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 4.5.4: computer programme per se
- Software Patents in India: Can Software Be Patented
Disclaimer: Based on the manuals and guidelines published by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks that are named in the article, as consulted on 4 October 2026. They are guidance and do not have the force of law; the Patents Act, 1970 and the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended (including the 2024 amendment rules) prevail, and the current versions on ipindia.gov.in should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.