Begin with what the claims actually do
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act excludes mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes per se and algorithms. The phrase per se appears with computer programmes; it does not remove the separate exclusions for business methods, mathematical methods or algorithms. An application should therefore be assessed by the substance of its claims, read as a whole, rather than by adding labels such as system, device, AI or platform.
For a computer-related invention, the specification should identify the technical problem, the features that solve it and the technical effect or contribution produced by the claimed arrangement. The description should explain how the implementation works and support the claim features. Generic hardware that merely carries out ordinary program instructions, without a demonstrated technical contribution, may not take a claim outside the exclusion.
The case law shows why the details matter
In Ferid Allani v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2019), the Court set aside the refusal for reconsideration and explained that computer-program-based inventions are not all excluded; the technical effect or contribution must be assessed. The judgment did not grant a patent automatically.
In Comviva Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (Delhi High Court, 12 November 2024), the Court considered claims for a token-based authentication system for electronic payment cards. It treated the claims as a technical process addressing unauthorised transactions rather than a method of carrying out the payment itself, set aside the Section 3(k) refusal and directed the Patent Office to proceed subject to other objections.
The contrasting decision in Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Delhi High Court, 1 July 2025) upheld a Section 3(k) refusal where the claimed peer-to-peer search and profiling used conventional computer components and the Court found no demonstrable technical advancement. The Court assessed the claims and specification on their particular facts.
Use the current examination guidance carefully
The Patent Office's 2025 Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions provide examination guidance and examples; they do not amend Section 3(k). A 2026 guideline for the use of artificial intelligence in patent examination is also listed by IP India. These materials should be read alongside the Act and court decisions, not as an independent guarantee of eligibility.
A practical drafting record
Before filing, identify which claim features produce the asserted technical result and why that result is more than the desired business outcome or ordinary execution of an algorithm. Make the architecture, data flow, hardware interaction, constraints and measurable technical effects clear in the original disclosure. Keep independent claims focused on supported technical features and ensure that dependent claims add meaningful disclosed detail.
During prosecution, respond to the actual Section 3(k) objection with claim-specific analysis. Explain the claimed subject matter as a whole, distinguish business purpose from technical operation where relevant, and connect each asserted effect to the specification and evidence. Technical effect is important for computer programmes per se, but it cannot rescue subject matter that is in substance an excluded business method or algorithm.
This article is a general overview, checked on 10 October 2026. The outcome depends on the claims, specification, prior art and procedural record.