IP Intelligence › Real Scenarios › The claim that treated a patient
Real-life scenario · fictionalised
The claim that treated a patient
A team develops a way of using a wearable sensor together with a dosing schedule to manage a chronic condition. The application is drafted with three independent claims: a method of treating the condition, a system, and a computer-implemented method of calculating the schedule. The examination report objects to claim 1 under section 3(i) and to claim 3 under section 3(k).
Is anything left?
What each objection means
Section 3(i) excludes processes for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of human beings. A method of treating a condition is squarely inside it. That claim is not arguable in India - it is a category problem, not an evidence problem.
Section 3(k) applies to the calculation claim to the extent it is a computer programme per se or an algorithm. Whether it survives depends on whether the specification describes a technical effect.
The claim that survives
Claim 2, the system, is usually where the value sits in India. Products, devices, compositions, kits and apparatus used in treatment remain patentable; only processes of treatment are excluded.
The drafting lesson is that claim category should be decided before drafting, not defended afterwards. A team that expects section 3(i) writes the system claim first and gives it the detail, rather than treating it as a secondary claim behind a method claim that was never going to be allowed in India.
What should have happened
- Decided claim category against section 3 before drafting, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
- Given the system and device claims the primary drafting effort for India.
- Described the technical effect of the calculation - in the system, not in the clinical outcome.
- Kept the method-of-treatment claim for jurisdictions that allow it, rather than leading with it in India.
In India the same invention needs a different claim shape. That decision belongs at drafting, not at examination.
This scenario is a composite teaching example written by Ragulika IP. It does not describe any real client, application or matter, and any resemblance to a specific case is coincidental.
Sources & further reading
- Section 3, Patents Act 1970 - what are not inventions — Official IP India section text
- The Patents Act, 1970 (consolidated to 1 August 2024) — Official IP India text
Related
Why a good invention still gets a Section 3 objection
A section 3 objection is a subject-matter objection, and it is answered by evidence and framing rather than by arguing about the prior art. Each clause has its own t…
The invention is new - and still not patentable
Indian law has a filter that operates completely independently of novelty and inventive step. Section 3 lists things that are not inventions at all - and something c…
Section 3(k)
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme **per se**, and algorithms from being inventions.
Thinking about filing?
Before anything is drafted, the useful work is establishing what is already public, what is genuinely yours, and what you can honestly claim.
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.