FERID ALLANI v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019]

INTRODUCTION

The landmark judgment in Ferid Allani v Union of India marked a pivotal moment in India’s jurisprudence on computer-related inventions (CRIs), including algorithms, digital interfaces, and AI-enabled mechanisms. The case reinforced the Indian Patent Office’s longstanding restrictive approach to software-based inventions and clarified the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970. This case clarified how genuine technological innovations cannot be denied patent protection merely because they are implemented on a computer.^[1] The ruling is significant mainly because the Indian Patent Office (IPO) had held a rigid view for nearly two decades, treating most software-related innovations as automatically excluded from patentability. The judgment created a path for the Indian Patent law towards recognizing genuine technological innovation, surrounding intellectual property protection for algorithms, digital processes, AI-driven systems, and computer-implemented inventions (CIIs).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Ferid Allani, a Tunisian Citizen, filed a provisional patent titled “Method and Device for Accessing Information Sources and Services on the Web” in France on 30^th December 1999, seeking protection for a digital technology facilitating improved access and navigation across online resources.^[2] The invention proposed a unified interface that made it easier for people to use online services by using an intelligent search and access system.

However, because the invention fell within the exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) rejected the application multiple times for over two decades.^[3] Section 3(k) bars patents for “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms and hence the IPO held that the invention was a computer programme per se, lacking any technical advancement. The Intellectual Property Board (IPAB) also upheld the petitioner’s plea thereafter, which he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the refusal and arguing that the IPO had failed to examine the invention holistically, especially its technical contribution.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the patent application can be granted under section 2(1) (ja) of the Patent Act, 1970?
2. Whether an invention demonstrates a “technical effect” or “technical contribution” falls outside the exclusion contained in section 3(k).
3. Whether the patent office must do a thorough assessment of the invention’s technological character instead of labelling it as software-based.
4. Whether India should align its patent jurisprudence with international standards for evaluating computer-based inventions.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner argued that the patent clearly discloses their specialization in technical effect, and treating it merely as a software product failed to value its technical substance. It was also pointed out that the invention produced a technical effect, such as enhanced user interaction and improved resource efficiency, and therefore could not be excluded under section 3(k). He also argued that the rejection is against the law because any patent application that gives better database search engine techniques, faster speeds, etc., would be a technical effect. The petitioner pointed out that similar patents have been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), reflecting the invention’s global patentability.

2. RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The IPO claimed that it was not patentable as the invention was based on conventional hardware executing a computer programme. They argued that the applicant did not demonstrate any novel hardware, as Section 3(k) bars software-based inventions unless accompanied by novel hardware. They even pointed out that the petitioner failed to request the high court’s involvement under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to respond to the IPAB order, which is a specialized tribunal.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

• The court held that “computer programme per se” must be narrowly construed as section 3(k) does not exclude all computer-related inventions; instead, it excludes only those lacking technical effect or contribution. They contended that the phrase “per se” was included to guarantee that authentic inventions created from computer programs are eligible for patents.
• The court emphasized that the technical inventions that provide effects such as improved speed, reduced resource usage, and enhanced user interface qualify for patent protection even if implemented through software.
• The court noted that, based on the EPO guidelines, computer-implemented inventions are patentable when they solve a technical problem using a technical solution. This enhanced India’s approach with jurisdictions such as the EU, the US, and Japan.
• IPO was heavily criticized for failing to substantively evaluate the invention’s technical features and asserted that patent examiners must conduct a detailed assessment, including identifying the technical problem and technical advancement claimed.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The judgment had a significant effect on the Patent Office as it revised its guidelines for CRIs, instructing examiners to assess technical effect and innovation potential rather than relying on mechanical exclusion, which improved consistency in granting patents for AI-driven inventions, cybersecurity algorithms, and fintech systems.
2. Allani strengthened the confidence among investors and innovators, which reflected India’s rapid growth in AI startups, in areas like generative AI, autonomous processes, digital payments, medical diagnostics, and other cyber-related domains.
3. Following the judgment, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI frameworks has intensified debates on software patentability, and such systems have a stronger foothold for patent protection in India because they demonstrate technical effect and technical contribution (e.g., improved accuracy on novel datasets).
4. This judgment has been increasingly referred to in subsequent matters involving digital innovations, and now even the patent examiners also issue office actions with explicit reference to technical contribution, reflecting a significant cultural shift in the Indian IP jurisprudence.
5. This case ensured that Indian innovators are not disadvantaged in global markets, especially in cross-border licensing, joint development agreements, and technology transfer negotiations, as the United States, Japan, and South Korea already have a well-established framework recognizing software-related inventions.
6. The court’s emphasis on technical effect has helped in balancing protection with public interest by preventing trivial software processes from being patented, and similarly, this judgment has sparked debates on algorithmic patent thickets and patentability.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Although the judgment in Ferid Allani v Union of India marked a significant shift in India’s computer-related inventions and other technical domains, it has raised important doctrinal and policy questions. To understand the rationale behind Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, it is important to note that it was primarily introduced to prevent the monopolization of abstract ideas, mathematical methods, and basic algorithms. In this case, the main concern was that software patents could give rise to patent thickets and allow companies to block the development of interoperable systems and small-scale innovation because, in a country like India, where open-source software and cost-effective digital development play a substantial role in the IT boom, this exclusion definitely served as a safeguard against anti-competitive practices.

The court’s recognition of patentability has aligned Indian jurisprudence with global standards, particularly those of the European Patent Office, but also introduces ambiguity. “Technical effect” is not precisely defined in Indian law and is inherently dynamic, but in layman’s words, it simply counts as a technical advancement that may become routine tomorrow. The judgment’s practical effectiveness depends on institutional capacity, as this might risk inconsistent application by patent examiners, who may interpret the standard differently depending on their technical expertise.

The role of policymaking traditionally belongs to the Parliament. So, the issue is the extent to which the court’s approach aligns with the legislative intent. The judiciary effectively expanded the scope for software-based patenting without any legislative backing or statutory amendments. The Parliament deliberately excluded software per se to preserve openness and accessibility, which raises questions about the judicial innovation’s democratic legitimacy and partially dilutes Parliament’s rationale.

The judgment’s strong contemporary relevance is reflected in India’s deep involvement in artificial intelligence, fintech, digital payments, cybersecurity, and generative-AI systems. Denial of patent protection to such tech innovations might risk investments, undermining India’s deep-tech startups and causing misalignment with global IP standards as it facilitates licensing, technology transfer, and participation in global supply chains.

Ultimately, the judgment reflects a judicial effort to strike a balance between international harmonization, innovation incentives, and the fundamental concern of avoiding the monopolization of abstract concepts. Careful implementation and a comprehensive future legislative framework will bring success, clearing boundaries for CRI and AI-related patents.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of Ferid Allani v Union of India is one of the most significant and consequential judgments that remains quite under-recognized but is crucial for India’s evolving computer-related and AI-driven patent ecosystem. The Delhi High Court moved Indian patent law towards a balanced, progressive, and globally aligned framework, recognizing the centrality of software innovation in modern technology. This decision has put responsibility on the patent authorities to meaningfully examine the technical contributors rather than defaulting to exclusions.

Findings from Allani have helped in shaping the patent prosecution, judicial reasoning, and innovation policy across sectors ranging from generative AI and cybersecurity to fintech and e-commerce, which positioned India as a global digital innovation hub in the international domain.

[1] Ferid Allani v Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court, 12 December 2019) W.P. © 7/2014 & CM APPL. 40736/2019 <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/> accessed 27 November 2025

[2] ibid

[3] Patents Act 1970, s 3(k)