IPR
Topic 93 Software IoT SEPs
Topic 93 — Software Patents, IoT and Standard Essential Patents
Software, the Internet of Things (IoT), and standard-essential patents (SEPs) form the technical foundation of the digital economy. Software patents face the perennial Section 3(k) "computer programmes per se" challenge in India — extensively litigated through Ferid Allani v. UoI (2019:DHC:6944), Microsoft v. Asst Controller (2023:DHC:3342), OpenTV v. Controller (2023:DHC:3305), Raytheon v. CGPDTM (2023:DHC:6673), Comviva (2024), Google (2 April 2024), and Blackberry (2024:DHC:6571). The CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) consolidate the technical effect framework. IoT — the network of physical devices connected via internet — creates patent-rich ecosystems with billions of connected sensors, smart appliances, vehicles, and industrial equipment by 2026. Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) — patents required to comply with technical standards (4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, codec) — face India's most contested IP litigation, exemplified by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd. (2024:DHC:2698) — a major SEP infringement decision where Delhi HC awarded substantial damages. The Indian Patent Office's CRI Guidelines 2025 reaffirms reliance on Ericsson v. Lava's seven-step test for novelty assessment. The Indian Standards Bureau is increasingly involved in SEP matters. FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing principles are evolving through Indian jurisprudence. This topic walks through software patents, IoT IP, SEPs, FRAND framework, and India's strategic position.
1. Software Patents Under Section 3(k)
A. The Technical Effect Framework
✅ Indian Software Patent Framework — Three-Step Test CRI Guidelines 2025 establish: Step 1: Understand the invention as a whole. Step 2: Assess whether invention reflects: · Mere computer program per se → NOT PATENTABLE. · Technical solution providing technical effect → POSSIBLY PATENTABLE. Step 3: Rule on patentability based on technical contribution. The Ferid Allani three-prong analysis: 1. Technical Contribution — Does the invention solve a technical problem? 2. Technical Effect — Does it produce concrete technical outcome? 3. Technical Advancement — Does it improve on prior art technically? If YES to all three — patentable. If NO to any — Section 3(k) exclusion applies. |
B. Examples of Patentable Software
Invention Type | Patentability |
|---|---|
Encryption algorithm with specific implementation | PATENTABLE. |
Image processing for medical diagnostics | PATENTABLE. |
Compression algorithm for telecommunications | PATENTABLE. |
Voice recognition with specific signal processing | PATENTABLE. |
Industrial control systems | PATENTABLE. |
Database optimization algorithms | POSSIBLY PATENTABLE (technical effect). |
Machine learning algorithms for technical applications | PATENTABLE. |
Pure data processing without technical effect | NOT PATENTABLE. |
Business logic implementations | NOT PATENTABLE. |
Pure mathematical optimization | NOT PATENTABLE. |
Generic data sorting/searching | NOT PATENTABLE. |
User interface improvements (cosmetic) | NOT PATENTABLE. |
C. Comparison with International Frameworks
Jurisdiction | Software Patent Approach |
|---|---|
India | Section 3(k) "per se" exclusion; technical effect test (Ferid Allani). |
USA | Alice/Mayo two-step abstract idea test; restrictive post-2014. |
EU/EPO | Technical character test; G1/19 Pension Benefit Systems framework. |
UK | Aerotel/Macrossan test; technical contribution. |
Japan | Patentable if produces technical effect. |
China | Increasingly permissive; technical contribution test. |
Australia | Manner of manufacture test; software broadly patentable. |
2. IoT IP Framework
A. The IoT Ecosystem
1 DEVICES sensors, smart objects | 2 CONNECTIVITY wireless protocols | 3 PLATFORMS cloud aggregation |
4 ANALYTICS data processing | 5 APPLICATIONS use cases |
B. IoT Patent Categories
Layer | Patent Examples |
|---|---|
Hardware | Sensor designs, microcontrollers, antenna designs. |
Connectivity | 4G/5G modems, Wi-Fi chips, Bluetooth/LoRa modules. |
Protocol | MQTT, CoAP, communication standards. |
Platform | Cloud architectures, device management. |
Analytics | Edge computing, AI-driven analytics. |
Application | Smart home, smart city, industrial IoT. |
C. IoT Patent Patentability
IoT patents face Section 3(k) scrutiny:
- Hardware components — patentable (sensors, devices).
- Communication protocols — patentable if technical effect (Ericsson v. Lava precedent).
- Platform architectures — patentable if technical contribution.
- Analytics algorithms — patentable if technical effect (CRI Guidelines 2025).
- User interface improvements — generally NOT patentable.
- Business logic — NOT patentable.
3. Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
A. What Are SEPs?
- Patents essential for compliance with technical standards.
- Standards: 4G LTE, 5G, Wi-Fi 6/7, HEVC, AVC, USB, HDMI, Bluetooth.
- Set by Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs): ETSI, IEEE, 3GPP.
- Covered by FRAND obligations (Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory).
- Holders include: Ericsson, Nokia, Qualcomm, Huawei, Samsung, InterDigital.
B. The FRAND Obligation
✅ FRAND — Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Licensing When a patent is declared essential to a standard: FRAND obligations require: · FAIR — licence terms not exploiting position. · REASONABLE — royalty rates commensurate with technology contribution. · NON-DISCRIMINATORY — similar terms to similarly situated licensees. Licence determination: · Voluntary negotiation. · Court-determined royalty. · Arbitration. · Joint determination by multiple SEPs. Violations: · Demanding excessive royalty (above FRAND). · Refusing to license (essential). · Pursuing injunctions while willing licensee. Key Indian framework: · Indian courts adjudicating FRAND disputes. · Antitrust scrutiny of SEP holders. · Coordination with international FRAND determinations. |
C. The Ericsson v. Lava Watershed Case
📖 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Lava International Ltd., 2024:DHC:2698 (Del HC, 28 March 2024) Background — Major SEP infringement case. Ericsson sued Lava for infringement of multiple Standard Essential Patents related to 2G, EDGE, and AMR technologies. Litigation continued for years. Holding — Delhi HC examined: (i) Whether Ericsson's patents were valid. (ii) Whether Lava infringed those patents. (iii) Whether Lava was a willing licensee. (iv) FRAND royalty determination. Decision — Court found Lava liable; awarded substantial damages. Seven-Step Novelty Test (SEPs) — Court refined the seven-step test for novelty: (1) Identify the invention. (2) Identify the prior art. (3) Compare claim by claim. (4) Assess differences. (5) Identify inventive step. (6) Apply person skilled in art test. (7) Conclude on novelty. Significance — Foundational Indian SEP case: (i) Confirmed FRAND obligations enforceable by Indian courts. (ii) Established willingness-to-license standard. (iii) Seven-step novelty test adopted by CRI Guidelines 2025. (iv) India's commitment to SEP enforcement signal. (v) Demonstrated Indian court capability to handle complex SEP disputes. |
D. Other Indian SEP Cases
Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
Ericsson v. Intex Technologies | 2015 Del | First major Indian SEP case; FRAND framework. |
Ericsson v. Micromax | 2014-2016 | FRAND royalty determination. |
Ericsson v. iBall | 2015 Del | Patent infringement. |
Ericsson v. Karbonn | 2015 | Additional SEP enforcement. |
Ericsson v. Xiaomi | 2014 Del | Cross-border SEP issues. |
Ericsson v. Lava (2024) | 2024:DHC:2698 | WATERSHED — substantial damages. |
4. India's Strategic Position on SEPs
A. India as Major Mobile Market
- India: 1.2+ billion mobile subscribers.
- Massive smartphone production hub (Make in India).
- Strategic for global SEP holders.
- Significant FRAND royalty implications.
B. Indian SEP Royalty Determination
✅ Indian SEP royalty considerations Indian courts have grappled with FRAND royalty determination: · Top-down approach — calculate global SEP royalty pool, allocate by contribution. · Bottom-up approach — focus on specific patents and their technical contribution. · Comparable license approach — examine industry-standard royalties. · Income-based approach — proportion of product price. Common ranges (industry benchmarks): · 2G/3G royalties: 2-5% of handset selling price. · 4G LTE royalties: 1-3% of handset selling price. · 5G royalties: emerging; 2-5% of price. Indian courts have moved away from purely top-down approach toward more nuanced FRAND analysis. Ericsson v. Lava (2024) — Indian court demonstrated sophisticated FRAND capability. |
C. CCI and Antitrust
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has examined SEP matters:
- Ericsson — multiple investigations on SEP licensing practices.
- Allegations: refusing to license; demanding excessive royalties.
- CCI Section 4 abuse of dominant position framework.
- Section 3 anti-competitive agreements scrutiny.
5. Open Source Software and IP
A. Open Source Licensing
License | Type | Reciprocity |
|---|---|---|
GPL (GNU General Public License) | Copyleft | Strong — derivative works must be GPL. |
LGPL (Lesser GPL) | Limited copyleft | Linking exception; library use permitted. |
Apache License 2.0 | Permissive | Patent grants; modification freedom. |
MIT License | Permissive | Minimal restrictions. |
BSD License | Permissive | Minimal restrictions; older variants exist. |
Mozilla Public License | File-level copyleft | File-level reciprocity. |
B. Open Source Compliance
- Identify open source components in proprietary software.
- Comply with each license's terms.
- GPL contagion risk for permissive vs. copyleft.
- Patent grant clauses (Apache, GPL) implications.
- Notice and attribution requirements.
C. Indian Open Source Litigation
- Limited Indian case law on open source compliance.
- License terms enforced under Indian Contract Act 1872.
- Copyright remedies under Copyright Act 1957.
- Cross-border enforcement coordination.
6. Trade Secrets in Software
A. Software Trade Secret Categories
- Source code (often confidential).
- Proprietary algorithms.
- Database structures.
- API designs.
- Architectural decisions.
- Customer data and analytics.
B. Software Trade Secret vs. Patent
Aspect | Trade Secret | Patent |
|---|---|---|
Term | Indefinite (while secret). | 20 years from filing. |
Disclosure | NOT required. | Required (publication after 18 months). |
Cost | Low (compliance only). | High (filing + maintenance). |
Reverse engineering | No protection. | Protected. |
Speed | Immediate. | 3-7 years. |
Geographic | Unlimited. | Country-by-country. |
Section 3(k) issues | No issue. | Major hurdle. |
7. Strategic Considerations
✅ For software companies — twelve points For patentable software, demonstrate technical effect prominently. For business logic, recognize Section 3(k) exclusion. For algorithms, document concrete technical implementation. For SEPs, evaluate FRAND licensing offers carefully. For SEP litigation, prepare seven-step novelty defenses. For non-essential patents, robust patent portfolio strategy. For trade secrets, alternative to patents for non-patentable software. For open source, comprehensive compliance program. For cross-border, coordinate IP strategies. For cloud services, address jurisdictional issues. For mobile devices, plan for SEP cumulative royalties. For startups, balance patent costs vs. trade secret/copyright. |
✅ For Indian device manufacturers — six points Comply with FRAND obligations on essential patents. Prepare for Ericsson v. Lava-style SEP assertions. For domestic manufacturing, plan SEP licensing budget. For Make in India compliance, recognize IP costs. For exports, coordinate with foreign markets' SEP requirements. For litigation defense, prepare seven-step novelty arguments. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 93
|