Topics In Demand
Notification
New

No notification found.

Nasscom's Feedback on Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025
Nasscom's Feedback on Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025

May 7, 2025

5

0

We submitted our feedback on the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025 (Draft Guidelines) issued by the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) on March 25, 2025.

We have highlighted that the Draft Guidelines can bring needed clarity and consistency in the examination process, which can be particularly useful for patent applications from emerging fields, like AI. Based on industry inputs, we have recommended that:

  • The Patent Office should set up mechanisms for regular engagement with relevant experts from industry, academia, and legal fraternity on patent-related aspects of emerging technologies.

Given the focus on emerging fields like AI and blockchain, regular engagement on patent-related aspects of these technologies is expected to enhance and facilitate the development of Draft Guidelines. We have highlighted that currently, various aspects of the Draft Guidelines, such as used terminology and disclosure requirements, are not suitable for emerging technologies.

  • Draft Guidelines should clearly state that for AI-related inventions, describing the characteristics of training data would amount to sufficient disclosure, and disclosing the entire dataset is not required.

The requirement to explicitly identify the training data, as prescribed on page no. 25 of the Draft Guidelines, is overly broad and should be reconsidered. The Draft Guidelines should clarify that defining the characteristics of the training data amounts to sufficient disclosure.

  • Provide more details on the evaluation of technical effects of CRIs. For instance, the cited examples of claims should also provide the reasoning for patentability/non-patentability of claims.

At present, the Draft Guidelines provide a non-exhaustive list of effects to illustrate technical effects. This is followed by several examples of patentable and non-patentable claims. However, the rationale behind patentability/non-patentability of cited claims is not given, which can result in varying interpretations, going against the objectives of clarity and consistency.

For any queries on the above subject-matter, please contact Dhananjay Sharma (dhananjay@nasscom.in) with a copy to policy@nasscom.in.

    


That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.


Download Attachment

20250430_feedback_CRI_Guidelines_nasscom.pdf

images
Dhananjay Sharma
Senior Associate

© Copyright nasscom. All Rights Reserved.