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.
The Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), 2025 tell the Patent Office how to examine applications whose features are realised wholly or partly by computer hardware or software. Paragraphs 1 to 3.4 set the stage: what a CRI is, what the document is for, which words it uses and how it reads section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
A CRI is an invention that involves computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus, with at least one feature realised by hardware or software (para 1.2). The aim is consistent examination and clarity on the section 3(k) exclusions (para 1.3). Section 3(k) has four limbs: mathematical method, business method, algorithm and computer programme per se (para 3.4). 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. This article covers the opening paragraphs only. The assessment steps for each limb are in later articles in this series, and the plain-language summary of the law is in our post on software patents in India.
What the Guidelines are for (paragraphs 1.1 to 1.5)
Paragraph 1.1 is a survey of the technology landscape: artificial intelligence, blockchain, quantum computing, cloud and edge computing, the Internet of Things, cyber security and 5G or 6G are all named as sources of new filings. Paragraph 1.2 then defines the field. CRIs are inventions involving computers, networks or other programmable apparatus, including those where one or more features are realised wholly or partially by computer hardware or software. The Office says that examination should look at whether an innovation goes beyond traditional software and algorithms to give a technical solution.
Paragraph 1.3 gives the aim: consistency in examination, and clarity on the exclusions expected under section 3(k), so that eligible applications can be examined efficiently. Paragraph 1.4 states the status of the document. The Guidelines "do not constitute rule making", and if they conflict with the Act or the Rules, those provisions prevail. They are open to revision in light of court rulings, amendments and stakeholder inputs. Paragraph 1.5 adds that the case laws they cite are for interpreting the Act and are "inherently dynamic".
For an applicant this means two things. The examiner will use the Guidelines as a working checklist, so your specification and your reply should speak in the Guidelines' vocabulary. But an objection that goes beyond the statute can be argued, because the statute governs; a well-framed patent objection reply does exactly that.
The defined terms (paragraph 2)
Paragraph 2 lists the words used. Where an Indian statute defines a term, the Guidelines follow that definition. Where none exists, ordinary dictionary meaning or court usage applies. TaxClue's own summary:
| Term | Where the Guidelines take it from | Why it matters in examination |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm (2.1) | Not defined in statute; the Guidelines quote a 2024 Madras High Court ruling in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC as cited in the Guidelines | Anchors the algorithm limb: a set of rules or steps for solving a problem |
| Computer, computer network, computer system, data, function, information (2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10) | Information Technology Act, 2000 | Fixes what counts as a computer-related feature |
| Computer programme (2.4) | Copyright Act, 1957, section 2(ffc) | A set of instructions capable of causing a computer to perform a task or achieve a result |
| Firmware, hardware, software (2.7, 2.9, 2.12) | Not defined in statute; dictionary meaning | Separates the physical parts from the instructions they run |
| Per se (2.11) | Not defined in the Act; the same Madras High Court ruling is quoted | Means considered alone, without reference to other facts |
| Manual (2.13) | The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, as amended | Cross-reference for procedure |
A practical consequence follows from the "per se" entry. A claim should never present the programme standing alone. It should show the programme working with the hardware or process around it, which later articles in this series explain.
The statute behind the Guidelines (paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3)
Paragraph 3.1 recalls that "invention" in section 2(1)(j) is a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application, and that inventive step in section 2(1)(ja) turns on technical advance, economic significance or both. Our post on the definitions of invention, inventive step and industrial application explains these, so this article does not repeat them. Paragraph 3.2 lists clauses (k) to (o) of section 3 as amended in 2002.
Paragraph 3.3 reproduces the view of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the words "per se". In the Committee's view, a computer programme may carry ancillary things with it, and where those are inventions they are not meant to be rejected. Only programmes as such are not intended to be patented. The Office reads this as the origin of the distinction between a bare programme and a programme that forms part of a technical solution.
The four limbs of section 3(k) (paragraph 3.4)
Paragraph 3.4 says that "as on date" section 3(k) has four limbs:
- mathematical method;
- business method;
- algorithm;
- computer programme per se.
Each gets its own assessment in paragraph 4.5 of the Guidelines: see the mathematical method exclusion first, then the others in order. For the wider list of exclusions, see what cannot be patented under section 3.
What the Guidelines replace (paragraphs 6 and 7)
Paragraph 6 is a saving clause. It says that Chapter 09.03.05.10 of the Manual, which dealt with section 3(k), "shall stand deleted" once the Guidelines come into force. Paragraph 7 says the Guidelines apply "with immediate effect". No day or month is printed in the document, so this article does not give one. Earlier CRI guidelines are superseded and should not be relied on. The practical rule is simple: if you have an older Manual extract or an older CRI note in your files, replace it.
If your matter touches the other Section 3 clauses that sit beside (k), such as mental acts or presentation of information, see our article on Manual Chapter 9, section 3(l) to (p).
What to do with this at the drafting stage
- State in the specification which features are realised in hardware, which in software, and how they interact.
- Describe the technical problem and the technical solution in those terms; paragraph 1.2 points the examiner towards "a technical solution".
- Do not call anything a "computer programme" on its own in the claims; link it to the device, system or process it controls.
- Keep the court rulings in mind as interpretation aids only (para 1.5); the next article in this series sets out the rulings the Guidelines rely on, in paragraph 3.5.
Need help with a software or computer-related patent?
If your invention runs on a computer and you want the claims and description framed so that the section 3(k) objection is answered before it is raised, our team can review the draft. See patent objection reply for how we handle examination reports on these inventions. For the technical disclosure itself, the next steps are in paragraph 4.1 to 4.3 on novelty and inventive step.
Key takeaways
- The CRI Guidelines 2025 apply to inventions involving computers, networks or programmable apparatus.
- Section 3(k) has four limbs, and each is examined separately.
- Terms are taken from the IT Act, the Copyright Act or dictionary meaning.
- Manual paragraph 09.03.05.10 stands deleted; earlier CRI guidelines are superseded.
- The Act and Rules prevail over the Guidelines if they conflict.
Read next
- Software Patents in India: Can Software Be Patented
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraph 3.5: the court rulings
- CRI Guidelines 2025, paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3: novelty and inventive step
- What Cannot Be Patented: Section 3
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.