IP Intelligence › Case Explainers › The case that put technical effect back at the centre
Case in 90 seconds
The case that put technical effect back at the centre
Delhi High Court · 2024 · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 185/2022, decided 16 April 2024
What happened
Microsoft appealed the refusal of an application relating to lapped biorthogonal transform filtering, refused under section 3(k).
What the fight was about
Whether an invention that incorporates algorithms within a method or system is inherently excluded, and whether it must run on novel hardware to escape section 3(k).
What the court decided
An invention merely incorporating algorithms within a method or system is not inherently non-patentable if it contributes directly to a specific and credible technical effect and enhances the functionality of the hardware - expressly including on a general-purpose computer. The Court also criticised the Controller for applying a novel hardware requirement drawn from the 2016 CRI Guidelines, which the 2017 Guidelines had removed.
Why an inventor should care
Software-implemented inventions are patentable in India when they make the machine measurably better. The work is describing that improvement technically, in the specification, before you file.
What a patent professional should take from it
Check which version of the CRI Guidelines an examiner is applying. The position has moved again: revised CRI Guidelines were notified on 29 July 2025, with a step-wise section 3(k) methodology, worked examples, and specific treatment of AI, machine learning, blockchain and quantum computing including sufficiency of disclosure.
An algorithm inside a system that measurably improves the system is not a computer programme per se.
Find this judgment in our case law database ›
There is more than one Delhi High Court decision involving Microsoft Technology Licensing on section 3(k), including one from May 2023. Cite the specific case number and date rather than the party name alone.
This is an editorial case note prepared by Ragulika IP - a summary of a decision, not the text of the judgment, and not authority. Read the judgment itself before relying on any point.
Sources & further reading
- Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v Assistant Controller of Patents, Delhi High Court, 16 April 2024, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 185/2022
- Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, notified 29 July 2025 — CGPDTM, via Press Information Bureau
- Section 3, Patents Act 1970 - what are not inventions — Official IP India section text
Related
Section 3(k)
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme **per se**, and algorithms from being inventions.
What counts as a technical effect
Something measurable that improves in the machine, the system or the process - not something that improves for the user or the business.
New CRI Guidelines replace the 2017 version, and cover AI for the first time
Not sure whether this applies to your invention?
The honest answer usually needs someone to look at your actual disclosure, your timeline and the prior art. That is a conversation, not an article.
Educational guidance, not legal advice. This material is published by Ragulika IP for general education and information. It is not legal advice, it does not create a professional-client relationship, and it is not a substitute for advice on your own facts. Patentability, infringement, prosecution strategy and every other IP outcome turn on the specific facts and on the law and Patent Office practice as they stand at the time you act. Please take professional advice before making a decision, and read the underlying provision or judgment before relying on any point stated here.
Last reviewed by Ragulika IP on 2026-08-23. Indian patent law and Patent Office practice change; check the position before you rely on it.