Is Section 3(k) losing its significance?

It wasn’t long back when section 3(k) defined as “A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not patentable” was under heavy discussions as regards the standards based on which patentability of a computer implemented invention alias software invention would be examined.

A computer implemented invention was defined as any invention the performance of which involves the use of computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, or an invention one or more features which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme/ programmes. Computer programmes, on the other hand, were defined as a set of instructions for controlling a sequence of operations of a data processing system. It closely resembles a mathematical method. It may be expressed in various forms e.g., a series of verbal statements, a flowchart, an algorithm, or other coded form and maybe presented in a form suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may require transcription into a different format (computer language). It may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned record, or it maybe permanently recorded in a control store forming part of a computer.

The bar for examining such computer implemented inventions was set on the extent to which an invention demonstrates technical effect, which in turn being a hairy term, was further assessed based on whether the patent specification discloses to have a tangible output or a significant effect on the hardware/firmware. A hardware implementation performing a novel function therefore was not rendered patentable if the particular hardware system is known or is obvious irrespective of the function performed. In summary, “software per se” was differentiated from “software having technical effect” through its technical application in the industry. A claim directed to a technical process which process is carried out under the control of a programme (whether by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as relating to a computer programme as such. In such a case, a software specification relating to and claiming a method of predicting fluctuations in stock market, being purely based on a mental algorithm, would not be held patentable and a software for running an actuator on the other hand would be rendered patentable.

Finally to set the background for the actual status of 3(k) as a bar for examining patentability, Indian Patent office manual has been setting and/or quoting Patent Applications such as 558/DELNP/2005 which being a pure computer implemented software application, was denied a patent in India. The question being raised is whether 3(k) is being correctly applied in India in view of some recently granted Patents. We shall look at the same through some below mentioned case studies from across Hi-Tech domain:

Case Study 1: The Patent Application 8/CHENP/2005 is granted (Indian Patent No. 221272 filed by RGA Technology Partners). The granted patent relates to a method and system for evaluating insurability of an applicant for insurance based on an interactive questionnaire given a server by access of a database. The first Independent claim of the specification states:

A computerized method of evaluating insurability of an applicant for insurance from a carrier, said method comprising:

defining processing rules to determine which questions in a comprehensive set of application questions are to be presented to the applicant for collecting underwriting information from the applicant and to determine an order of presentation of the questions, said processing rules being based on underwriting rules associated with the carrier for rendering a decision on the insurability of the applicant from the underwriting information collected from the applicant;

assigning an engine variable to one or more of the questions in the comprehensive set of application questions for use in matching underwriting information previously obtained from the applicant to minimize redundant responses from the applicant;

presenting an interactive questionnaire via a browser operating on a client computer, said questionnaire including one or more base questions and one or more detail questions selected from the comprehensive set of questions according to the processing rules and the assigned engine variables, said detail questions each being related to at least one of the base questions for collecting further information related to the respective base question;
receiving at a server communications from the client computer including the responses to the questions presented to the applicant in the questionnaire, said server and said client computer being coupled to a data communication network; and

rendering a contemporaneous decision on the insurability of the applicant based on the questionnaire and the responses thereto from the applicant.

It is obvious from the very analysis of the specification, that the subject matter claims and pertains to a sequence of steps being implemented purely by a computer implemented software application. The specification does not claim any tangible output from the software and ultimately yields a suitability of application to get the insurance based on a set of questions from the server and answers given thereto by the Applicant.

It is furthermore important to note the view of the concerned subject matter by the EPO, which too, like India, applies the technical effect test for a computer implemented subject matter. According to the corresponding EPO Application No. EP 03 76 0294 having International Classification as G06F17/60, claims 1-40 pertain to a matter that is excluded from patentability under article 52(2) and (3) EPC and formulated to merely specify commonplace features related to a technological implementation of such matter to such an extent that a meaningful search is not possible. The search report also states that “Any problem which are addressed do not appear to require a technical but an administrative i.e. business solution.” The question therefore is if the Patent Office has loosened the bars for testing applications under 3(k) and granting application to reduce the backlogs or is it an indication of India slowly following the path of US Patent Law and approaching towards Bliski like contentions.

Case Study 2: The Patent Application No. 552/CHE/2004 is granted (Indian Patent No. 228947 filed by Samsung India Software Operations Pvt. Ltd). The granted patent relates to a method for anonymous instant messaging between an originating client and the recipient using an Instant Messaging (IM) server. The first Independent claim of the specification discloses:

A method for anonymous instant messaging between an originating client and the recipient using an Instant Messaging (IM) server, the method comprising the steps of:

a) receiving the request for hiding its actual user ID for anonymous message delivery from the originating client and confirming back to the message request;

b) creating or substituting a volatile ID for the actual ID of the originating client;

c) delivering the message to the recipient and obtaining the confirmation from the recipient;

d) receiving a subsequent reply from the recipient which makes use of the said volatile ID for communication and confirming back to the recipient client;

e) resolving the volatile ID with the actual user ID; and

f) delivering the reply from the said recipient to the originating client with the actual user ID and obtaining the confirmation from the originating client.

As can be observed, the invention pertains to three entities namely an originating client, a recipient, and a server all of which are operatively connected so as to enable sending of messages from the originating client to the recipient. The disclosure completely fails to discuss any subject matter pertaining to an impact on the hardware and/or firmware and also fails to demonstrate any technical effect on the hardware or produce a tangible output. The disclosure was restricted to a messaging mechanism which is well known in the art and purely an incremental improvement at the software level rather than at the network level. Therefore the concerned subject matter does not embody a technical process, which exists outside the computer.

The moot question therefore lies in:

  1. The precise basis on which Section 3(k) is being implemented and justification that can be given for demonstrating technical effect in such pure computer enabled implementation.
  2. Whether inclusion of a few hardware elements in the independent claim or merely enabling software objects to interact with hardware elements, the new test of bringing in substantiating arguments to make the subject matter patentable.
  3. Whether system claims are no longer suggested and preferred over method claims when it comes down to computer implemented inventions.
  4. Whether 3(k) is just for namesake!!!


1. iPairs (Indian Patent Information Retrieval System)

2. Europe Patent office website

About the Author: Mr. Tarun Khurana, Partner and Patent Attorney in Institute of Intellectual Property Research & Development (IIPRD) and can be reached:

Leave a Reply



  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010