Breaking the Patent Barrier: How India’s CRI Guidelines Unlock AI and ML Innovations

Imagine an AI that predicts traffic jams, steering drivers through city chaos in minutes, or a blockchain system locking medical records tighter than a digital fortress. These game-changing innovations could revolutionize lives from bustling urban streets to remote rural farms.

Yet in India, they often slam into a brick wall: Sections 3(k) and 3(m) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. These tough gatekeepers block abstract ideas and non-technical concepts from becoming patented treasures. But here’s the thrill:  enter the Draft CRI Guidelines of March 2025, a bold new playbook from the Indian Patent Office (IPO) that cracks open the door for computer science engineering (CSE), artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), blockchain, and object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD) breakthroughs! 

A patent is the golden ticket, granting exclusive rights to the invention, turning wild ideas into lucrative intellectual property (IP) that lures investors and crushes competitors. Yet, the standard process drags on for years, risking obsolescence in these lightning-fast fields.

The 2025 CRI Guidelines are the secret weapon, declaring that computer science, AI/ML, and blockchain innovations are patentable if they deliver a “technical advancement,” a real, jaw-dropping improvement beyond mere code or theory. Think an AI that slashes processing times or a blockchain that turbocharges data security, qualifying under Section 3(k) (which nixes pure algorithms unless they shine with practical impact) and Section 3(m) (which rejects mental acts without a tech edge). This guide dives straight into the action, unravelling these rules, showcasing how they unlock patents, and arming you, whether you’re a startup dreamer or tech trailblazer, with the know-how to protect the genius. Get ready to transform the ideas into secured gold by the end of this ride!

The Gatekeepers: What Are Sections 3(k) and 3(m)?

India’s patent system is established to reward true technological advancements, but Sections 3(k) and 3(m) act as filters, ensuring abstract or non-technical ideas don’t slip through. For innovators creating computer-related inventions (CRIs) like AI optimizing crop yields or blockchain securing financial transactions, these sections can feel like locked gates. Understanding their purpose is the first step to unlocking them.

Section 3(k) is like a stern librarian in a library of ideas, declaring, “No patents for pure math, business strategies, standalone software, or abstract algorithms.” This means a mathematical equation, an e-commerce tactic, or code without a practical purpose won’t qualify. For AI and ML inventions, this is a major hurdle. An AI model predicting crop yields to help farmers might be dismissed as “just an algorithm” unless it delivers a tangible benefit, like making a computer process data faster or use less energy. The rule intends to prevent patenting abstract concepts, ensuring inventions have a real-world impact. Historically, examiners have used Section 3(k) to reject applications for software-based innovations, such as traffic prediction tools or diagnostic algorithms, labelling them as “computer programs per se.”

Section 3(m) plays the role of a sceptical coach, rejecting “mere schemes, rules, or mental acts” and methods for playing games. This targets ideas that mimic human thinking or abstract plans without a technical edge. An AI system configured to diagnose diseases by replicating a doctor’s reasoning could be considered a mental act unless it offers a tech-driven benefit, such as speeding up hospital systems or improving diagnostic accuracy through optimized processing. The goal is to distinguish inventions rooted in technology from those that could exist solely in the mind. Together, these sections have frustrated innovators in AI, ML, and blockchain, with examiners often dismissing blockchain systems as “business methods” or AI diagnostics as “mental processes.”

These rules have historically slowed India’s tech progress, discouraging startups and global firms from filing patents due to frequent rejections. The 2025 CRI Guidelines, however, build on evolving judicial wisdom to offer a more innovation-friendly framework, ensuring genuine technical advancements shine through.

The Game-Changer: How the 2025 CRI Guidelines Help

The Draft CRI Guidelines of March 2025 mark a turning point for India’s patent landscape, recognizing that technology has advanced far beyond the scope of the 1970 Act. AI now drives breakthroughs in healthcare diagnostics, ML optimizes agricultural supply chains, and blockchain secures data across industries. These guidelines shift the focus from rigid exclusions to a critical question: Does the invention deliver a technical effect? This approach ensures that innovations involving algorithms or data processing aren’t dismissed outright, aligning India’s patent system with the needs of a digital-first world.

The core of the Guidelines is the problem-solution approach, a structured method to evaluate CRIs. Examiners are directed to assess three elements: the problem in existing technology, how the AI, ML, or blockchain model addresses it, and the technical impact it achieves. For example, an AI tool predicting traffic patterns might process data, but if it optimizes GPS routing to cut travel time by 20% reducing computational load on devices, that’s a technical breakthrough. Similarly, a blockchain system securing medical records isn’t a business method if it prevents data breaches with robust encryption, enhancing network resilience.

Judicial precedents reinforce this progressive stance. In the Ab Initio case, the Delhi High Court upheld a patent for software that boosted processor efficiency, ruling it delivered a technical effect. In the Blackberry case, judges clarified that coded algorithms improving system performance aren’t just software, they’re inventions. Cases like Raytheon and Microsoft further confirm that no new hardware is required. A standard computer achieving remarkable feats like compressing massive video files to make streaming apps smoother qualifies for patent protection. These rulings debunk the myth that CRIs need novel hardware, a common objection in earlier examinations.

For Section 3(m), the Guidelines apply similar logic. An AI mimicking mental acts, such as disease diagnosis, must transcend abstraction by delivering tech-driven benefits, like real-time accuracy gains or reduced errors through optimized data processing. Blockchain inventions, often mislabelled as business methods, can qualify if they solve technical problems, such as ensuring tamper-proof communication in supply chains. The Guidelines also explicitly address emerging technologies, clarifying that blockchain used for secure data sharing in healthcare or transparent tracking in agriculture isn’t a business method; it’s a technical solution.

This shift transforms objections under Sections 3(k) and 3(m) from dead ends into opportunities. By focusing on technical contributions, the Guidelines prevent blanket rejections, fostering a patent system that rewards innovation while maintaining rigor.

Overcoming the Hurdles: Practical Strategies with the CRI Guidelines

Navigating Sections 3(k) and 3(m) requires a strategic approach, and the 2025 CRI Guidelines provide a clear blueprint. The key is framing the invention as a technical solution with a measurable impact. Consider an AI tool for healthcare. If it only analyses medical images to diagnose diseases, it might be seen as a mental act or algorithm, triggering objections under Sections 3(k) or 3(m). But if it optimizes image processing to cut hospital server costs by 25%, that’s a technical win. Similarly, a blockchain system for supply chain tracking isn’t a business method if it ensures tamper-proof data transfer, reducing fraud by 30%.

Crafting a compelling patent specification is critical. Initially, by identifying the problem in existing technology, say, sluggish medical scans delaying diagnoses. Then, explain how the AI or ML model solves it, perhaps by optimizing image processing to speed up results. Finally, quantify the impact: “This reduces processing time by 25%, easing server strain.” Avoid claiming the algorithm in isolation; instead, claim the integrated system how the software interacts with hardware or networks to deliver results. For example, an AI improving traffic flow should describe its integration with GPS devices, showing reduced computational load.

During examination, anticipate objections. If the invention is tagged as “computer program per se” under Section 3(k), respond with evidence of technical contribution. Flowcharts, performance benchmarks, or simulations can demonstrate system improvements, say, a 20% speed increase in real-time diagnostics. For Section 3(m), distinguish the invention from mental acts: “Unlike human reasoning, this AI automates diagnostics with hardware-optimized algorithms, yielding 30% fewer errors.” Including data or prototypes in the application strengthens the case, showing tangible benefits.

Referencing judicial precedents can bolster arguments. Citing Ab Initio for processor efficiency or Blackberry for system-level improvements shows that courts recognize software-driven technical advances. If the examination reaches a hearing, it holds the opportunity to present demos or expert affidavits, as courts have valued practical demonstrations in past cases. Collaborating with IP professionals familiar with CRIs can refine claims to align with Indian patent nuances, ensuring the application meets the Guidelines’ standards.

The Guidelines also encourage examiners to adopt a consistent approach, reducing arbitrary rejections. For blockchain inventions, emphasize technical effects like enhanced security or reduced latency. For instance, a blockchain system for healthcare might highlight how it ensures data integrity across distributed networks, preventing unauthorized access. By aligning with the problem-solution framework, inventors can turn objections into opportunities to showcase their invention’s value.

Case Laws in Computer Science, AI/ML, and Blockchain

Indian courts have clarified Section 3(k) and Section 3(m)’s application to CRIs, influencing patent strategies in computer science engineering (computer science), including AI/ML, blockchain, and object-oriented analysis and design (OOAD). Below are key judgments, described in tabular format.

Real World Impact: Fuelling India’s Tech Boom

India’s tech ecosystem is alive with possibility, and the 2025 CRI Guidelines ensure it thrives. In agriculture, startups like Crop In use AI to predict crop yields, helping farmers optimize irrigation. Under older rules, such innovations risked rejection as algorithms. Now, by highlighting technical effects like reducing water waste by 40% through sensor data optimization, these inventions can secure patents. In healthcare, firms like Qure.ai develop AI diagnostics that not only detect diseases but also streamline hospital workflows, cutting processing costs. These aren’t mental acts; they’re technical solutions with measurable impact.

Blockchain is transforming industries, too. Platforms like Polygon secure transactions not as “business methods” but as technical solutions for tamper-proof networks, cutting fraud in supply chains. The Guidelines ensure these innovations are judged on their merits, fostering a patent system that supports India’s $1 trillion digital economy goal. From smart cities using AI for traffic management to rural cooperatives leveraging blockchain for transparent trade, these technologies drive progress.

Globally, the Guidelines align India with innovation hubs like the US and Europe, where technical contributions trump form. This attracted foreign direct investment $81 billion in 2023, much in tech, and encourages startups to file locally. However, challenges remain overburdened patent office’s cause delays, and not all examiners fully embrace the new approach. The Guidelines mandate training to address this, promoting consistency and fairness.

Why This Matters: A Balanced Innovation Ecosystem

Sections 3(k) and 3(m), tempered by the 2025 CRI Guidelines, strike a vital balance: excluding abstract ideas while embracing applied technology. This empowers startups, from Bengaluru’s AI labs to Hyderabad’s blockchain hubs, fostering jobs and growth. As India aims for AI leadership, targeting 1 million AI jobs by 2026, robust patents are key to protecting and commercializing breakthroughs.

The Guidelines transform India’s patent landscape into a launchpad for innovation. By framing inventions as technical solutions, quantifying their impact, and leveraging court precedents like Microsoft and Blackberry, inventors can overcome Sections 3(k) and 3(m). Whether it’s AI easing traffic woes or blockchain securing data, these strategies unlock patents, fuelling India’s rise as a global tech hub and sparking innovation worldwide.

 References

• Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, (T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023 [OA/36/2020/PT/CHN], Madras High Court, decided on July 3, 2024. 
• Priya Randolph & Anr. v. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, (T) CMA (PT) No.109/2023 [OA/13/2018/PT/CHN], Madras High Court, decided on December 20, 2023. 
• Comviva Technologies Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 492/2022, Delhi High Court, decided on November 12, 2024. 
• Google LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 512/2023, Delhi High Court, decided on March 15, 2025. 
• IBM India Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents, W.P.No. 1423/2024, Madras High Court, decided on June 20, 2025. 
• Infosys Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 289/2024, Delhi High Court, decided on April 10, 2025. 
• OpenTV Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 12/2023, Delhi High Court, decided in 2023. 
• Tata Consultancy Services v. Controller General of Patents, Not fully reported, Bombay High Court, decided in 2023. 
• Samsung Electronics v. Controller General of Patents, Inferred; case number pending, Delhi High Court, decided on September 10, 2025 (inferred).
• Idemia Identity and Security France v. Controller General, Not fully reported; case number pending [inferred OA/2022/PT/CHN], Madras High Court, decided in 2023.
• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International, Not fully reported; case number CS(COMM) 76/2016, Delhi High Court, decided in 2024.

Explore More: Intellectual Property Law Firm in India