Computer-Related Invention Not Barred U/S 3(k) Patents Act If It Demonstrates Technical Contribution: Madras High Court

For context, Section 2(1)(j) says that an invention must be new, must involve an inventive step, meaning that it is not obvious to a skilled person and must be capable of industrial use. Section 3(k) excludes mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes per se and algorithms from being patentable inventions.

A single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the verdict on November 4, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Patent Office in July 2020.

In July 2010, Ab Initio had filed the patent application for its invention titled “Graphic Representations of Data Relationship”. The Patent Office issued an examination report raising objections including lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and non-patentability under Section 3(k). After hearings and amendments, the Office ultimately refused the application in July 2020 on the grounds that the claimed method lacked any inventive step and it amounted to a computer programme per se.

Before the High Court, Ab Initio argued that the invention focuses on data lineage and that the prior art cited by Patent Office did not disclose these features thus, it incorporated an inventive step. The company relied on decisions and the Office's own guidelines to state that the claimed features of its invention make a technical contribution and are therefore, not excluded by Section 3(k).

The Patent Office maintained that the claims were implemented by computer software and argued that the method amounted to an algorithm or computer programme per se.

After analysing the material, the Court noted that the earlier technology (prior art) did not contain all the important features found in Ab Initio's invention. It observed that the invention uses a specific method to track how data moves from one point to another and that a person skilled in the art would not arrive at this method just by looking at prior art. The Court ruled that the invention is new and involves an inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(j).

On the objection of non-patentability, the Court observed that under Indian patent law, a computer-related invention is not automatically rejected under Section 3(k). If the invention offers a real technical improvement or produces a technical effect, it can still be patented even if it uses algorithms or computer programs. In this case, the Court found that the invention improved how quickly data queries are answered which gave the invention a clear technical character. Thus, the Court ruled that the invention was not barred by Section 3(k).

“The conclusion that follows is that, under Indian law, patent applications in relation to a CRI, even de hors novel hardware or impact on the internal working thereof, would not be excluded under Section 3(k) if such CRI makes a technical contribution or has a technical effect.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the refusal order passed by Patent Office and allowed the appeal filed by Ab Initio Company.

Case Title: Ab Initio Technology LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

Case No.: (T)CMA(PT) No.58 of 2023

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Vineet Rohilla & Mr. D. Subbin for M/s. Remfry and Sagar

For the Respondents: Mr. S. Diwakar, SPC; Mr. Raj Kumar, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs