The Calcutta High Court in Google LLC v. Controller of Patents (decided on 6 August 2025), has reaffirmed the strict approach to computer-related inventions (CRIs) under Indian patent law.
Google filed Patent Application No. 2705/KOLNP/2014, titled “A Method for Labelling Visited Locations Based on Contact Information”, which sought to patent a method for tagging user, visited locations with contact labels to improve location-aware services. The Indian Patent Office rejected the application on 3 July 2020, invoking Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which excludes “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” from patent protection. The application was filed in November 2014.
The Controller of Patents concluded that the claims were no more than algorithmic processing performed on a single computing device. Functional steps such as “collecting,” “determining,” “associating,” and “outputting” were considered abstract, result oriented descriptions lacking any novel hardware or measurable technical advancement. Additionally, the application suffered from a procedural defect as the Proof of Right document for one inventor was found defective.
On appeal beforeunder Section 117A of the Patents Act, challenging an order dated 3 July, 2020, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Google argued that its invention produced a genuine technical effect and offered a technological solution rather than a mere software program. Google relied on precedents such as Ferid Allani v. Union of India (2019), Blackberry Limited v. Controller of Patents (2024), and Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Assistant Controller of Patents (2024), where courts had acknowledged software, related inventions that demonstrated improvement in system performance.
However, the Calcutta High Court was not convinced. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the invention merely automated contextual labelling of location data and amounted to an administrative or management function. Since no technical contribution or hardware integration was disclosed, the invention fell within the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
The Court also clarified the role of the CRI Guidelines issued by the Indian Patent Office. While examiners may refer to them, such as the 2017 Guidelines prescribing the three-step test for CRIs, the Court emphasized that these Guidelines are interpretative aids and not binding law. Statutory provisions and judicial precedents continue to take precedence in determining patentability.
Thus, Section 3(k) continues to present a hurdle, and CRI applications will only succeed if they show a clear technical advancement or improvement beyond generic data processing. Broad, functional claims expressed in abstract language are unlikely to meet this threshold.
Procedural compliance, including accurate Proof of Right filings, is equally critical. Ultimately, the decision underscores that while computer-related inventions in India may gain protection where genuine technical contributions are shown, courts will apply Section 3(k) strictly to prevent patents on software per se.
LAW-IP AND MORE 