It is increasingly observed that fintech inventors are confident about novelty, but stumble on one predictable line in the First Examination Report, that their claims are a “business method” or a “computer programme per se”. Payments, tokenisation, fraud analytics, KYC orchestration and algorithmic risk scores often look like pure software on paper, which triggers the Section 3(k) objection. Recent orders from the Delhi High Court show both refusals and remands in computer-related inventions, which means outcomes turn on how the invention is framed, evidenced and claimed. This piece distils what trips up fintech specifications in India, and how to plan a prosecution strategy that aligns with Indian practice.
The legal problem statement, in plain words
Section 3(k) excludes “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” from patentability. The Indian Patent Office applies specialised Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) guidance alongside the Act and Rules. The Revised CRI Guidelines, 2017, emphasise substance over claim form, direct examiners to test for technical effect or technical contribution, and caution that merely performing a business process on conventional hardware is not enough.
Courts have reinforced this approach. In Ferid Allani v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2019), the Court held that if an invention demonstrates a technical effect or technical contribution, it is not barred by Section 3(k), even if it is implemented in software. More recently, in Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Assistant Controller (Delhi High Court, 2023–2024), the Court reiterated that computer-implemented inventions are examinable for patentability if they show a concrete technical effect beyond a set of instructions.
Why fintech gets flagged under Section 3(k)
Fintech claim sets regularly include features that sound like commercial logic, for example settlement preference, fee routing, dynamic interchange, merchant category rules, loyalty credits, risk thresholds, or KYC tiers. When the inventive kernel reads like a set of business rules or mere information processing, the application risks refusal as a “business method” or “programme per se”. The 2017 CRI Guidelines ask examiners to look past claim labels and identify the real contribution, checking whether there is a demonstrable technical effect such as lower latency, reduced bandwidth, better memory use, improved cryptographic resistance, or fault-tolerant network behaviour.
Two strands from 2024–2025 case law illustrate the practical split:
Comviva Technologies v. Assistant Controller (Delhi High Court, 12 November 2024) involved electronic card authentication using an electronic token. The Court set aside the refusal under Section 3(k), noting a technical solution to a technical problem in contactless payments, not a mere business method.
BlackBerry matters, 2024 show both outcomes. In one appeal, refusal was upheld when the contribution looked like instructions without technical effect. In another, the refusal was set aside and remanded where the Court found the Controller’s reasoning insufficient and the claims were refocused on a concrete technical result. The message for applicants is clear, the same “software” label can pass or fail depending on proof of technical effect and quality of reasoning.
Drafting fintech claims for India, what actually works
Anchor the invention in a technical problem and effect
State the network, device, or cryptographic bottleneck the invention overcomes, and tie each claim feature to that bottleneck. Use measurable outcomes, for example, “reduces authentication round-trips from three to one on ISO 14443 NFC links”, or “lowers false positives by an out-of-distribution detector implemented at the edge gateway with X% latency reduction”. Courts and the CRI Guidelines look for technical contribution rather than business outcomes.
Claim structure, in layers
Independent apparatus or system claim that recites concrete technical elements, for example a secure element, a risk-scoring co-processor, an HSM interface, a network state machine, or protocol-level message transformations that change how the system operates, not merely what it computes.
Method claim framed as steps that alter system behaviour, for example handshake renegotiation thresholds, key-rotation scheduling at the transport layer, or packet framing that reduces retransmissions under payment terminal jitter.
Computer-readable medium claim can be included, but do not rely on it. The substantive weight must still sit in the system or method claims.
Evidence of technical effect, inside the specification
Include experimental data, benchmarks, or architectural traces. The 2017 CRI Guidelines ask for working relationships between components and clear outcomes linked to the claimed features. Flowcharts and sequence diagrams help examiners see the technical delta.
Avoid red flags that scream “business method”
Do not centre claims on pricing, settlement windows, fee apportionment, cashback rules, or ledger presentation. Move that to context.
Map fraud or credit-risk logic to signal processing, model lifecycle operations, feature engineering on device telemetry, or secure protocol design. This ties the contribution to computing, not commerce.
Prosecution playbook tailored for fintech
Use Ferid Allani and Microsoft the right way
Cite Ferid Allani for the proposition that technical effect or contribution can lift a CRI out of Section 3(k), then show where the technical effect is evidenced in your specification. Use Microsoft to reinforce that substance matters over labels and that a software-implemented invention is not automatically excluded. Over-reliance on case names without mapping features to effects rarely persuades.
Leverage favourable fintech precedents when applicable
If your invention concerns tokenisation, contactless authentication or secure card present flows, Comviva is on-point. Explain how your claims, like Comviva’s, address a protocol-layer problem and produce a security or performance gain, rather than re-arranging business rules.
Anticipate and pre-empt the “series of instructions” objection
A common refusal ground is that the claims are only a series of instructions executed on a general-purpose computer. Counter with architecture, not adjectives, and with measured performance deltas. Recent commentary and orders highlight that mere instructions without a technical effect remain non-patentable.
Claim amendments with a prosecution map
Plan fall-back claims that progressively crystallise the technical effect, for example narrowing to a specific handshake, caching strategy, or entropy budget that produced your bench results. Many remands turn on whether the record shows a real technical problem–solution chain.
Fintech-specific pitfalls and how to steer clear
“Hardware dressing” is insufficient. Adding a generic server, terminal or mobile phone will not cure Section 3(k). Show how the hardware is configured differently or how protocol-level changes alter operation. The CRI Guidelines are explicit about looking through form to substance.
“Business advantage” is not technical effect. Faster settlement or higher approval rates are business outcomes, not technical effects. Convert them into system metrics, for example fewer TLS renegotiations, reduced collisions in EMVCo kernels, or faster convergence in a fraud model due to on-device feature selection.
Crowded prior art in payments. Expect strong novelty and inventive-step pushes. Use differential claim charts against standards and white papers because much relevant art lives outside patents. The 2017 CRI Guidelines remind examiners to apply ordinary novelty and inventive-step analysis in addition to 3(k).
Draft once for India, not only for PCT. PCT applications often read like platform roadmaps, heavy on outcomes, light on system behaviour. For India, expand technical detail before national phase entry so the technical effect is fully enabled and claimed.
Frequently asked, answered briefly within the flow
Can payment methods be patented in India at all?
Yes, if the contribution lies in a technical solution, not commercial rules. Comviva shows that authentication and contactless payment security features can cross the threshold when they deliver a protocol-level improvement.Is adding “a processor and memory” enough to avoid 3(k)?
No. Examiners and courts look through such language. You must show how the processor is configured to achieve a technical effect, and the specification should evidence that effect.Do the CRI Guidelines change the Act?
No. They guide examination. The 2017 Guidelines remain the operative reference, and draft 2025 updates have been circulated for stakeholder input. Always rely on the Act and binding precedent first.What if my invention is mainly a machine-learning model for fraud detection?
Focus claims on the technical pipeline or system behaviour, not just the model. For example, on-device feature extraction that reduces bandwidth, or a secure inference mechanism that changes the communication pattern. Then evidence the improvement through metrics.Way forward, a practical checklist for fintech applicants
Define the technical problem early. Phrase it in network, device or cryptographic terms, not in business outcomes.
Evidence technical effect in the specification. Include benchmarks, traces or protocol timings that map directly to claim steps.
Structure claims in layers. Lead with system or method claims that alter machine behaviour, keep CRM claims as support.
Map to jurisprudence, not buzzwords. Use Ferid Allani and Microsoft to frame the legal test, and Comviva when authentication or tokenisation is central.
Prepare for dual objections. Expect Section 3(k) plus inventive-step. Prepare differential charts against standards like EMV, ISO 8583, FIDO or PCI architecture papers.
Amend smartly. Keep fall-back features that pin the technical effect to concrete operations, not commercial settings. Use hearing briefs to walk the Controller through the problem–solution chain.
Closing thought
Fintech patents in India are not off-limits, but they demand a disciplined, technical narrative. The consistent thread across Delhi High Court decisions is simple, identify the technical problem, claim the machine-level solution, and prove the effect in your own specification. If your filing does these three things, Section 3(k) becomes a surmountable objection rather than a dead end.
