This article discusses the evolving standards for patent eligibility in the context of computer-related inventions, with a focus on the requirement of "novel hardware." It examines a recent case where the Indian patent office erroneously applied the 2016 Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, which included the novel hardware requirement, instead of the 2017 guidelines that omitted it. The article argues that the novel hardware standard lacks a legal basis and should not be used as a criterion for patent eligibility in the field of computer-related inventions.

Introduction:
Patent law plays a crucial role in incentivizing innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period. In the realm of computer-related inventions (CRIs), determining patent eligibility has been a contentious issue. This article delves into the evolving standards for patent eligibility in CRIs, with a particular focus on the controversial "novel hardware" requirement.

The Novel Hardware Requirement:
The excerpt provided in the introduction refers to the contention surrounding the novel hardware requirement as part of the 2016 CRI Guidelines. These guidelines stipulated that, in order to be patent-eligible, a CRI must involve novel hardware. This requirement significantly raised the bar for obtaining patents in the field of CRIs. However, it is essential to highlight that this standard was replaced by the 2017 CRI Guidelines, which did not include the novel hardware requirement. The central issue in the case discussed in the excerpt is whether the patent office erroneously applied the outdated 2016 guidelines, leading to the rejection of the patent application.

Analysis of the Novel Hardware Requirement:
The novel hardware requirement has been a subject of debate in various jurisdictions. Critics argue that it imposes an unduly high standard on CRI inventors and is not rooted in the principles of patent law. The fundamental question is whether the presence of novel hardware should be a prerequisite for patent eligibility in CRIs.

Lack of Legal Basis:
One of the primary criticisms of the novel hardware requirement is its apparent lack of a legal basis. Patent law, at its core, focuses on protecting novel and non-obvious inventions, regardless of whether they involve hardware or software components. The requirement of novel hardware deviates from this fundamental principle and creates an arbitrary distinction within the realm of patent eligibility.

Technological Contribution vs. Novel Hardware:
In the field of CRIs, it is essential to determine whether an invention makes a "technical contribution" or achieves a "technical effect." This assessment focuses on the practical utility and innovation of the invention rather than its hardware components. The excerpt highlights the need for examining whether the invention reduces the time period in scheduling job execution in a High-Performance Computing (HPC) system. This emphasizes the importance of the invention's technical contribution, not the novelty of its hardware.

Evolving Guidelines:
The evolving nature of CRI guidelines further underscores the controversy surrounding the novel hardware requirement. The shift from the 2016 to the 2017 CRI Guidelines indicates a reconsideration of the patent office's stance on this issue. This shift reflects a recognition that the novel hardware standard may not align with the evolving nature of technology and innovation in the CRI field.

The concluding Note:
In conclusion, the case discussed in the excerpt illustrates the ongoing debate surrounding the patent eligibility of CRIs and the controversial novel hardware requirement. The excerpt argues that the novel hardware requirement lacks a legal basis and should not be used as a criterion for patent eligibility in CRIs. The evolution of CRI guidelines, as demonstrated by the shift from the 2016 to the 2017 guidelines, suggests a growing recognition that patent eligibility should be based on an invention's technical contribution rather than the presence of novel hardware. It is imperative for patent offices and courts worldwide to continue refining their approach to CRIs to strike a balance between incentivizing innovation and upholding the principles of patent law.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Raytheon Company Vs Controller General of Patent
Date of Judgement:15/09/2023
Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 121/2022
Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6673
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539