Patent laws in most jurisdictions declare subject matter ineligibilities and proscribe the grant of patents for inventions related to such subjects. Algorithms in India are a subject matter that is non-patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
An algorithm is a computational or mathematical process or set of rules to be followed in data processing or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. In many jurisdictions, algorithms are considered abstract ideas. However, in the US, algorithms are patentable if they produce novel and useful technical solutions to specific problems. Alice Corp.[1] is a classic precedent on this point.
Therefore, it is crucial to examine court rulings for determining eligibility of inventions for patents in specific jurisdictions, and the patentability standards can evolve overtime. The Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (2024)[2] is a seminal judgment in India on the rejection of algorithmic inventions.
Blackberry filed Indian Patent Application No. 1762/DEL/2008 titled “Administration of Wireless Systems”, aiming to secure a patent therefor. The invention was designed to manage wireless networks by resolving conflicts between multiple servers that configure client devices.
.png)
The Indian Patent Office (IPO) refused the application, on the primary ground that the purported invention was essentially an algorithm, that is, a set of instructions (a computer program) and therefore excluded from patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The IPO also concluded that the application lacked inventive step, and did not entail any substantive hardware-based inventive contribution.
Blackberry challenged this refusal in its appeal before the High Court of Delhi.
The court focused sharply on whether the claimed invention constituted a mere algorithmic process or a true “technical contribution” that extended beyond software logic and effected a real enhancement in system performance.
Assessing the claims and specifications, the court inferred that the core novelty envisaged in the invention was its conditional logic and procedural instructions for processing data; for configuring devices; and, for managing and resolving conflicts. Relying on the use of terms like ‘policy agent’, ‘communication policy’, ‘interoperating instructions’ in the claims, the court concluded that the invention relates to an algorithm. It pertinently observed that the invention:
“...deals with amore efficient manner of ensuring flow of information between wireless systems...the specification presents a framework for administration of wireless systems, focusing on secure data management, conflict resolution, and efficient synchronization between multiple servers and mobile devices."
The inevitable conclusion was that there was no novel hardware component, no change to underlying access or transmission protocols, nor any enhancement to the underlying physical or hardware layer. So, the claimed system in essence amounted to “a structured set of instructions…for managing and regulating the flow of informational content.”
The court noted that unlike the expression ‘computer programme’, the term ‘algorithm’ in Section 3(k) is not qualified with ‘per se’. Hence, under extant law, algorithms, as sequences of instructions, are not entitled to patents. To this extent, it ruled that “the law in India is different from the law in other jurisdictions…”
.jpg)
The judge concluded that the subject patent “encompasses a set of algorithmic instructions and procedural steps aimed at managing and regulating the flow of various types of informational content.” Relying on past precedents, the court held that the invention, essentially a “series or sequence of instructions” (algorithmic process), presented no substantial hardware contribution.
In the court’s view, the mere automation of server-client coordination through a software program running on conventional hardware did not satisfy the “technical effect” requirement that could distinguish it from a mere algorithm.
Consequently, the Court dismissed BlackBerry’s appeal and upheld the IPO’s decision that the patent application for “Administration of Wireless Systems” was ineligible under Section 3(k) of the Act and non-patentable.
The judgment reaffirms a narrow interpretation of computer-related inventions (CRIs) under Indian patent law: a mere software routine controlling wireless-server interactions does not pass the threshold for patentability.
Conversely though, in another Blackberry case (2024)[3] for an invention titled: "Auto-Selection of Media Files," the High Court of Delhi allowed the patent to proceed, emphasizing its concrete technical effect—the crucial litmus test—on device functionality.
The two cases illustrate the evolving jurisprudence in India on computer-related inventions (CRIs), distinguishing between software that proffers a mere procedural algorithm (non-patentable); and, software that provides a tangible technical solution or enhancement to a device (potentially patentable). This vitally establishes that patent offices and courts in India adopt a nuanced approach to software patentability.
At Blaze Ventures, we have elaborate processes and qualified professionals for helping innovators and enterprises ensure patentability of their software solutions and computer-implemented methods.
________________
[1] Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al.; 573 U.S. 208 (2014)
[2] 2024 DHC 6571; Judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CA (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022
[3] 2024 DHC 6572; Judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CA (COMM.IPD-PAT) 318/2022
