Independent educational platform. Not a government website and not the Indian Patent Office. Who we are
MYCrave Consultancy & Services PatentActIndia.comA MYCrave Initiative
Patents ActPatents RulesProcessGuidesToolsForms A–ZForms & FeesCase lawCompareWhat happens if…Who is applyingDeadlinesGlossaryWorked examplesUpdatesSearchSite mapAsk a QuestionMy LibraryConsult MYCrave
Case note

Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Others

The question before the court

Whether a method and device claim that operates through a computer program is barred outright by the exclusion for computer programmes.

What the court held

The Court set aside the refusal and sent the application back for fresh consideration. It held that the words computer programme per se were chosen deliberately, so the exclusion does not reach every invention that happens to use software. Where the claimed subject matter produces a technical effect, or makes a technical contribution, it is not excluded merely because a computer carries out the steps. The Controller was directed to examine the application again on that footing instead of rejecting it as software.

Why it matters to a reader of this provision

Many Indian software and computer implemented applications are refused under the computer programme exclusion, and this is the judgment both sides argue about. It is the clearest High Court statement that the words per se narrow the bar, and it put the technical effect question at the centre of examination. Later Delhi High Court decisions on computer related inventions build on it directly.

Provisions this judgment interprets

Open a provision for the plain-language explanation, the worked example and the forms and deadlines it touches.

Does this judgment affect your matter?

Whether a decision helps or hurts depends entirely on your facts and your claims. A patent professional can tell you which.