IP Intelligence › Case Explainers › The case that confirmed India bars business methods absolute
Case in 90 seconds
The case that confirmed India bars business methods absolutely
Delhi High Court · 2023 · 2023:DHC:3305, decided 11 May 2023
What happened
OpenTV appealed the refusal of an application for a system and method to provide gift media - a way of one person buying media content as a gift for another.
What the fight was about
Whether the invention was a non-patentable business method under section 3(k), and whether framing it as a system rather than a method made any difference.
What the court decided
The refusal was upheld. Two points matter beyond this case. First, the business method bar in India is absolute: unlike the European Patent Convention or UK law, section 3(k) carries no as such qualifier for business methods - the words per se attach only to computer programme - so European and UK authorities do not transpose. Second, substance over form: re-labelling a method claim as a system claim does not save it, and technical contributions in network architecture do not convert a business scheme into patentable subject matter. In a postscript the Court agreed that reconsideration of section 3(k) is warranted for AI and digital innovation, held that this lies squarely with the legislature, and directed that the judgment be sent to the Secretary, DPIIT.
Why an inventor should care
If the only thing that improves when your software runs is a commercial outcome - more conversions, better pricing, higher approval rates - no amount of claim drafting will make it patentable in India.
What a patent professional should take from it
Do not import European reasoning on as such into a section 3(k) business method argument. And do not rely on claim category conversion; Indian courts look through the format to what is actually being claimed.
You cannot dress a business method as a system and get past section 3(k) in India.
Find this judgment in our case law database ›
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
Related
Section 3(k)
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme **per se**, and algorithms from being inventions.
Software claimed as software
You cannot patent a computer programme per se. You can, on current Indian authority, patent an invention that happens to be implemented in software if it delivers a …
A business method becomes patentable if you claim it as a system.
Indian decisions look at substance rather than claim format. The business method bar in section 3(k) has no per se or as such qualifier at all.
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.