ABSTRACT In the digital age, the patentability of computer programmes and computer-related inventions (CRIs) under patent law are most debated questions. The phrase “computer programme per se” in Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970, has long been a source of legal ambiguity and debate within the Indian intellectual property and its interpretation plays an important role in determining the patentability of Computer-related inventions in India. The inclusion of the term “per se” by 2002 amendment has created interpretive uncertainty- whether this term totally excludes computer programme or allows patents to the inventions which produces technical effect or technical contribution. The paper argues that even though recent court judgments and IPO guidelines updates reflect a move toward a more practical, substance-based approach, there is still confusion because “technical effect” not clearly defines or applied in the same way across cases. Using a doctrinal research approach, this paper examines the legal text, Indian Patent Office guidelines, scholarly writings and major Delhi High Court judgments to know and understand how the phrase ‘per se’ has been interpreted in Indian Patent Law. It explores how the Indian Patent Office attempts to give practical meaning to this phrase through CRI guidelines and how courts have applied and relied upon the concepts of ‘technical effect’ and ‘technical contributions’ to separate genuinely inventive software-based technologies from non-patentable abstract idea. Keywords: Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs), Section 3(k) of Patent Act, 1970, Computer Programme per se; Software Patentability, Technical Effect, Technical Contribution, Indian Patent Office guidelines, Doctrinal Research, Judicial Interpretation.
Pawan Singh Jadaun (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: