IP Intelligence › Real Scenarios › The software claim with no technical effect
Real-life scenario · fictionalised
The software claim with no technical effect
A fintech company files on a method of assessing creditworthiness using alternative data. The claims recite a processor, a memory, a database and a series of steps for scoring an applicant. The specification explains, at length, that the method approves more borrowers, reduces defaults and increases revenue. The examination report objects under section 3(k) as a business method and a computer programme per se.
Can this be argued?
The exclusion has no as such for business methods
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme per se, and algorithms. The qualifier per se attaches only to computer programme. It does not qualify business method - so the business method bar in India is absolute, and European or UK authority on as such does not transpose.
Indian decisions look at substance rather than claim format. Reciting a processor and a memory does not convert a scheme for assessing credit into something else.
What would have been arguable
If the invention had produced a technical effect - reduced memory footprint, lower latency, improved data integrity, a specific improvement in how the system operates - that could have been claimed and argued, and the revised CRI Guidelines notified in July 2025 set out a step-wise way of doing so.
The difficulty is that the specification described only commercial effects. Approving more borrowers is not a technical effect, and no amount of claim drafting makes it one. If there is a genuine technical contribution here, it was never written down.
What should have happened
- Identified the technical contribution at drafting time and described it with measurements.
- Written the advantages section in terms of what improves in the system, not what improves for the business.
- Separated the technical invention from the commercial method and claimed the former.
- Checked the invention against section 3(k) and the CRI Guidelines before filing, not after.
For software in India, the question is never how it is claimed. It is what the specification says improves inside the machine.
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
- Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, notified 29 July 2025 — CGPDTM, via Press Information Bureau
- OpenTV Inc v Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi High Court, 11 May 2023, 2023:DHC:3305
Related
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 …
Section 3(k)
Section 3(k) excludes a mathematical method, a business method, a computer programme **per se**, and algorithms from being inventions.
The case that confirmed India bars business methods absolutely
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.
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.