Imagine you’re a software innovator in India. You’ve spent years developing a program that solves a real-world problem in logistics, banking, or healthcare. You think, “Great, I should patent this so no one else can copy it.” But then the patent office sends back a rejection citing Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act - “computer programs per se are not patentable.” Frustrating, isn’t it? That’s exactly the dilemma Ferid Allani faced, and his case has since become a cornerstone for understanding computer-related inventions (CRIs) in India.
At its heart, Ferid Allani v. Union of India isn’t just about one man or his software. It’s about how Indian law balances encouraging innovation with preventing patents from monopolizing abstract ideas or mere algorithms. For anyone interested in patenting software or computer-related processes in India, this case is a must-know.
Background of the Case
Ferid Allani, a software innovator based in India, filed a patent application for a computer-related invention aimed at improving data processing efficiency in banking transactions. He argued that his method provided technical advantages and reduced errors in financial operations. The patent office, however, rejected his application, citing Section 3(k), which excludes computer programs per se from patentability.
Frustrated but determined, Allani appealed. The case first went before the Delhi High Court, and later the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The journey was complex, spanning several years, and ultimately clarified what counts as a “technical effect” sufficient to overcome Section 3(k).
Legal Framework: Section 3(k) and ‘Technical Effect’
Before we dive into the court’s reasoning, let’s take a step back and understand the legal context.
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 states that computer programs per se or algorithms are not patentable. The tricky part is the phrase “per se.” It doesn’t mean all software is excluded. If a computer program produces a technical effect beyond mere calculation - like improving hardware efficiency or controlling an industrial process it may be patentable.
This notion of technical effect is borrowed from European patent law, but India has been careful to adapt it for its context. Essentially, you need to show that your software does more than just run on a computer - it must produce a concrete, demonstrable technical result.
Many software innovators get this wrong. They focus on novelty in code or algorithms, but courts care about the effect your invention produces in the real world.
Court Proceedings: High Court and IPAB
Delhi High Court
Allani first approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the patent office’s rejection. The court recognized that software inventions are tricky under Section 3(k). The High Court didn’t immediately grant the patent but remanded the case to the IPAB for a more detailed examination of the technical effect claimed by Allani.
The key takeaway: courts will not automatically invalidate software patents - they want evidence, experiments, and a demonstration of real-world impact.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)
The IPAB, after examining Allani’s evidence, ruled in his favor. The board highlighted that his invention:
Produced a tangible technical effect by reducing transaction errors in banking.
Was not merely a computer program per se; it integrated software with a specific technical process.
Had practical applicability, distinguishing it from abstract algorithms.
IPAB’s judgment set a precedent: software that produces technical effect beyond mere computation can be patented in India. This was a welcome signal for innovators, startups, and IT companies struggling to understand Section 3(k).
Technical Effect Explained
You might wonder: what exactly counts as a technical effect?
Think of a traffic management system that uses software to control signals based on real-time vehicle flow. The program doesn’t just run on a computer; it actively improves city traffic efficiency. That’s a technical effect.
In Allani’s case, the software optimized banking data processing, reducing errors and improving transaction speed. This wasn’t just a clever algorithm—it had a real-world impact on hardware, data handling, and process reliability.
For IP practitioners, the lesson is simple: highlight real-world outcomes, not just code or algorithms, in your patent applications.
Comparative Perspective: India vs Europe
India’s approach to CRIs is influenced by the European Patent Convention (EPC). In Europe, software is excluded only if it’s “as such”. Technical contribution or effect can make it patentable. India has mirrored this approach but remains cautious, emphasizing public interest and avoiding monopolization of abstract ideas.
Other countries, like the US, take a broader view: software is patentable if it’s tied to a machine or produces a “useful, concrete, and tangible result”. India’s approach is stricter in some ways but aligns with global standards on recognizing technical effect as the decisive factor.
Implications for Patent Applicants
The Allani case offers practical guidance for innovators:
Document Technical Effect – Courts want evidence that the invention produces a measurable improvement. Benchmarks, experiments, and real-world metrics help.
Link Software to Hardware or Processes – Showing integration with machinery, data handling systems, or industrial processes strengthens the patentability argument.
Prepare for Scrutiny Under Section 3(k) – Patent examiners will carefully examine whether your invention is truly “technical” or just software running on a computer.
Expert Opinions Matter – Affidavits from IT professionals or engineers can bolster claims of technical effect.
Essentially, don’t just patent code; patent the impact your code produces in a tangible system.
Key Jurisprudence and Related Cases
Several other cases provide context for CRIs in India:
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (2017) – emphasized that technical contribution is crucial for patentability.
Roche v. Cipla (2015) – while pharmaceutical in nature, reinforces the Indian judiciary’s insistence on clear technical evidence.
Bharat v. Ferid Allani (2018) – highlighted the procedural need for detailed examination at IPAB before granting software-related patents.
The Ferid Allani case complements these decisions by clarifying the boundaries of Section 3(k) and setting a precedent for software patents in India.
Common Misconceptions
Many innovators misinterpret Section 3(k):
“Software is never patentable in India” – False. Only computer programs per se are excluded.
“Patent examiners reject all software patents automatically” – False. If technical effect is demonstrated, patentability is possible.
“Technical effect is just improved speed or efficiency” – Partially true. Courts look for measurable, tangible improvements with real-world impact.
Understanding these nuances is key to a successful patent strategy.
Practical Tips for Innovators
Draft with Technical Language – Describe the process in engineering or operational terms. Avoid purely business-centric or abstract phrasing.
Include Flowcharts and Diagrams – Visual evidence helps examiners and courts see how the invention produces technical effect.
Cite Real-world Applications – Mention specific scenarios, industries, or hardware interactions.
File Early – Early filing establishes novelty and helps avoid disputes.
Maintain Evidence Logs – Keep records of trials, performance metrics, and user studies to support technical effect claims.
Future Outlook
The Ferid Allani case signals that India is becoming software-friendly in patent law, provided technical effect is clearly demonstrated. For startups, IT companies, and individual innovators:
Be thorough in documenting invention
Engage patent professionals familiar with Section 3(k)
Anticipate IPAB scrutiny
We can expect more computer-related patents being granted in India, but only when the technical effect hurdle is convincingly cleared.
Conclusion
Ferid Allani v. Union of India is more than a legal footnote. It’s a guidepost for innovators navigating the tricky waters of software patents in India. The case reinforces that:
Computer programs per se remain unpatentable.
Technical effect is the key to patent eligibility.
Detailed evidence and real-world demonstration matter more than abstract algorithms.
