Delhi High Court Reaffirms Section 3(k) Bar for Algorithmic Inventions - Kroll v. The Controller of Patents (2025)
- IPR IN INDIA
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
In a significant reaffirmation of the limits of software patentability under Indian law, the Delhi High Court in Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller of Patents & Designs has upheld the refusal of a patent application on the grounds that the claimed subject matter constitutes a mere algorithm and a computer program per se - and thus falls squarely under the exclusion of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Background:
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC (originally Tiversa, Inc.) filed Indian Patent Application No. 8100/DELNP/2007 titled “A System, Method and Apparatus to Locate at Least One Type of Person, via a Peer-to-Peer Network.” The application claimed a system for searching peer-to-peer (P2P) networks to identify certain types of individuals inadvertently sharing sensitive data.
Following a prolonged prosecution and hearing, the Assistant Controller refused the application in 2019 on three principal grounds:
Non - permissible amendments (Section 59),
Lack of inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)),
Exclusion under Section 3(k) — as the invention allegedly related to an algorithm or computer program per se.
The applicant appealed under Section 117A, contesting all three grounds.
Delhi High Court’s Findings:
1. On Amendments (Section 59) – Allowed
Justice Amit Bansal disagreed with the Controller’s finding that the proposed amendments expanded the scope of the original claim.
“The additional features are in the nature of explanation... and do not include anything which was not disclosed in the complete specification. These limitations narrow the scope of the original claim and are permissible.”– Para 14, Judgment
Thus, the Court held that the amendments complied with all conditions under Section 59, as previously interpreted in Nippon A & L Inc. v. Controller of Patents (2022).
2. On Patentability (Section 3(k)) – Upheld
Despite finding the amendments allowable, the Court upheld the refusal under Section 3(k). The invention was found to lack technical effect or advancement and instead relied on conventional hardware and known techniques of issuing search instructions in a P2P environment.
The claimed invention:
Utilized standard hardware (processor, memory, storage),
Relied on user-generated search terms to profile individuals,
Involved no improvement in system performance or network functionality.
“The invention merely enables a search within a peer-to-peer network... The profiling aspect using keyword lists is abstract and lacks technical character.”– Para 30, Judgment
The Court distinguished this invention from the kind of software - hardware integration that could overcome the Section 3(k) bar, as outlined in Lava v. Ericsson and Microsoft v. Controller of Patents. Instead, the reasoning was found more aligned with the outcome in Blackberry v. Controller, where a sequence of instructions, however complex, was not considered patentable without demonstrable technical effect.
Key Takeaways on Section 3(k):
Algorithms & software logic, even if implemented on generic hardware, are not patentable unless they lead to a specific technical effect or hardware enhancement.
The mere fact that the system processes queries and connects to P2P networks does not constitute a technical contribution.
Profiling users via search queries, in this context, was held to be an abstract, non-technical goal.
"The claimed invention is a mere sequence of instructions stored in hardware without solving any technical problem or offering any technical advancement to the hardware."– Para 33, Judgment
International Contrasts
Notably, the applicant pointed out that corresponding applications were granted in USA, China, Japan, and Australia. However, the Court reiterated that India’s exclusion under Section 3(k) is distinct and firmly rooted in legislative intent, policy, and interpretation standards laid down in CRI Guidelines and Indian precedents.
Conclusion:
The Kroll decision reaffirms that Indian patent law does not permit software-based claims that fail to meet a technical effect threshold, regardless of form or global grant status. While the Court showed openness in allowing claim amendments, it drew a firm line under Section 3(k), emphasizing substance over claim language.
As the patent community awaits the finalization of CRI Guidelines 2.0, Kroll serves as yet another reminder: if your invention doesn’t tangibly improve hardware performance or solve a real-world technical problem, you’re still in Section 3(k) territory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. Controller General of Patents, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 439/2022, decided July 01, 2025 (Delhi High Court, per Amit Bansal J.)
Comments