In T-Mobile International AG and Co. KG v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022, decided 4 August 2026), the Delhi High Court laid down a seven-step test for the mental-act branch of Section 3(m) under the Patents Act 1970, distinguishing mental-act claims from claims involving physical means, hardware-software interaction, or a tangible output.
The ruling sets out a framework for how examiners at the Indian Patent Office are to evaluate objections under Section 3(m), a provision for which, until this order, there were no structured guidelines. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela framed the guidelines with an amicus curiae’s assistance after counsel on both sides conceded that none existed.
Quick answer: In T-Mobile International AG v. Controller General of Patents, the Delhi High Court held that, on the mental-act branch of Section 3(m), a claim is excluded only if it monopolises nothing more than a mental act, read as a whole rather than dissected into individual steps. A claim escapes that exclusion where it recites physical means integral to its performance, requires hardware and software working together for a practical result, or produces a tangible output; a token physical step, such as printing a result, does not save a claim whose substance remains a mental act. A separate, fourth branch of Section 3(m), a method of playing a game, is excluded on its own terms and is not part of this seven-step test. Where a claim is performed by a computer, the objection moves to Section 3(k) instead.
The Patent Application Behind the Appeal
The appeal arose from patent application No. 468/DELNP/2008, titled “Method and Arrangement for Optimising the Operational Times and Cell Change Performance of Mobile Terminals,” refused by the Controller on 29 December 2016 under Section 3(k) and Section 3(m).
T-Mobile, acting through its constituted attorney (the person authorised to represent an applicant before the Indian Patent Office), challenged that refusal before the Delhi High Court as C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022. The two objections can arise together for telecommunications and software-adjacent inventions, where a claimed method can read as either a computer programme or an abstract scheme.
From Remand to Amicus Guidelines
The Court first heard arguments on the merits and, by an order dated 26 February 2026, remanded the application for de novo consideration by the Controller. During those arguments, counsel for both parties conceded that no guidelines existed for evaluating Section 3(m) objections, so the Court retained the appeal to settle that point, with Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, a young patent-law counsel, assisting as amicus curiae.
The amicus and counsel furnished draft guidelines, and the amicus filed an updated report on 20 May 2026. Because the application had already been remanded on its merits, the appeal remained pending only to finalise this framework; once settled, the Court closed it, directing that the guidelines be suitably placed before the Controller General for appropriate steps within six weeks of receipt.
What Section 3(m) Excludes, and What “Mere” Limits
Section 3 of the Patents Act 1970 lists categories that are not inventions. Section 3(m) reads: “a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game.”
The Court traced this exclusion to the Justice Ayyangar Committee’s redraft of the 1953 Patents Bill, intended to codify inventions refused in the interest of national economy, health, or well-being. Sub-section (m) was inserted by the 2002 amendment; the statement of objects and reasons linked it to “international practices,” and the Court noted it is pari materia with Article 52(2)(c) of the European Patent Convention.
Reading the disjunctive “or,” the Court identified four exceptions: a mere scheme of performing a mental act, a mere rule of performing a mental act, a mere method of performing a mental act, and a method of playing a game. “Mere” qualifies the first three, limiting that branch to claims that solely amount to a mental act and nothing more. A mental act, in the Court’s framing, is an act of the mind: calculation, reasoning, evaluation, cognition, discriminative faculties, logic, or judgement.
On the fourth branch, the Court accepted the amicus’s submission that playing a game can involve something physical, such as moving a chess piece, while the method of playing it remains abstract; Parliament paired “mental acts” with “method of playing game” to exclude both, since each is a matter of logic and cognition, not physical matter. The seven-step test below addresses only the mental-act branch; the games branch rests on separate reasoning.
Section 3(m) Stands Apart From Novelty and Inventive Step
The Court held that an invention can satisfy the inventive-step requirement under Section 2(1)(ja) and still fail under Section 3(m), because the exclusion operates as an independent category, tested on its own terms rather than folded into the novelty or inventive-step inquiry.
The seven-step test below carries this through directly: a claim is not excluded under Section 3 merely for appearing to be an obvious or trivial advance, a proposition the Court traced to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Novartis v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1.
The Seven-Step Test for Section 3(m) Objections
The Court’s guidelines, framed for the mental-act limb of Section 3(m), proceed through seven steps, moving from how a claim is read to how the exclusion is applied and where it stops.
First, the claim is construed as a person skilled in the art would read it, without importing limitations from the specification, per Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v. Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr., 2026:DHC:659-DB. Second, a genuine product claim, such as an apparatus or device defined by its physical features, is not a scheme, rule, or method, and cannot be objected to under Section 3(m). Third, for a process claim, the examiner identifies what the claim, read as a whole, monopolises, without dissecting it to isolate one mental-act step.
Fourth, the examiner asks whether that monopoly is nothing more than a mental act: could the claim be infringed by a person doing nothing but thinking, reasoning, calculating, judging, or deciding? If so, it is excluded. The exclusion does not apply where the claim, read as a whole, recites physical means integral to its performance, requires hardware and software working together for a practical result, or results in a tangible output. The Court drew this from *Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Anr.*, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1121, paragraph 133, and Lava International Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2497, paragraph 395, citing Robert Bosch Ltd. v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, CMA(PT) 1/2024, though its own earlier survey found Bosch prescribed no test and was simply remanded.
Fifth, a claim is not saved merely by naming a physical object or field of use; the physical means must be integral to performing the claimed steps, so a token post-solution step, such as printing a result, does not take the claim outside Section 3(m) if the monopoly’s substance remains mental. Sixth, as above, the inquiry stays independent of novelty and inventive step. Seventh, where a claim is performed by a computer or computer programme, Section 3(m) does not apply on that ground alone; it is examined separately under Section 3(k).
Applying the Test: What the Illustrations Show
The order works through six illustrations. A method of solving a Sudoku puzzle by logical deduction, with no physical means or tangible output, is excluded because the monopoly is entirely an act of the mind; printing the solution afterward does not change that, since printing is a token, post-solution step rather than something integral to solving the puzzle.
A method of identifying the optimum arrangement of fuel bundles in a nuclear reactor core, evaluating candidate arrangements and selecting one that minimises a given parameter, is excluded even though it names a reactor core, because the operative steps are purely analytical and the core is only the subject of analysis, not a means of performing it; the Court noted this reflects EPO decision T 914/02 (General Electric). Two further EPO decisions fed the same reasoning: T 619/02 (Quest International), where a method involving physical activities, assessed as a whole, was not excluded though part was mental; and T 471/05 (Philips), excluding only purely abstract and conceptual implementations, not a technical or physical activity.
By contrast, a method of preheating fuel in a combustion engine, using sensors, a fuel-heating device, and an engine control unit, is not excluded, because those physical means are integral to the method and it monopolises a physical process. A method of converting information words into a modulated signal, through circuits, buses, and a modulator, written onto a record carrier, is not excluded on the same reasoning, since it recites tangible components integral to its performance and produces a tangible output. A method of determining an optimal circuit-board layout, performed by a computer simulating electromagnetic interference to produce a layout file, is likewise not excluded under Section 3(m), because performing it requires a computer; the Court directed that such a claim be examined instead under Section 3(k).
Section 3(m) Is Not Section 3(k)
Step 7, and the circuit-board illustration that applies it, mark a deliberate line between the two most commonly paired objections in Indian software and telecommunications examination. The mental-act branch of Section 3(m) asks whether a claim’s monopoly is nothing more than a mental act. Section 3(k), excluding “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms,” is assessed instead under the Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines 2025 framework the Patent Office applies to computer-implemented inventions.
A Controller who finds a claim requires a computer cannot dispose of it under Section 3(m) alone; it moves to a Section 3(k) analysis under the CRI Guidelines 2025, which asks whether the claim provides a technical solution to a technical problem through technical means, producing a technical effect beyond a merely incidental one. Novel hardware is not required.
What Applicants and Practitioners Should Do Now
For applicants and their agents, the practical consequence sits in claim drafting. Claims reciting physical means integral to the invention’s operation, hardware and software interacting to reach a practical result, or a defined output are better positioned against a Section 3(m) objection than claims that read as evaluation or decision steps with a token physical add-on.
The order directs that the guidelines be placed before the Controller General within six weeks of receipt; that window concerns the administrative process, not whether the reasoning can be raised in a pending matter. Applicants with Section 3 objections already on file, including those replying to a first examination report, have a fresh, structured basis to argue their claims fall outside the exclusion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 3(m) provides that “a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game” is not an invention under the Act. The Delhi High Court has read this as four disjunctive exceptions, three of which are limited by the word “mere” to claims that amount solely to a mental act, and a fourth covering methods of playing games.
The test asks examiners to construe the claim, check whether it is a genuine product claim, identify what the claim as a whole monopolises, ask whether that monopoly is nothing more than a mental act, disregard token physical additions, keep the analysis separate from novelty and inventive step, and route computer-performed claims to Section 3(k) instead.
No. Section 3(m) excludes claims that monopolise nothing more than a mental act or a method of playing a game. Section 3(k) excludes mathematical or business methods, computer programmes per se, and algorithms, examined under the CRI Guidelines 2025. Under Step 7 of the T-Mobile guidelines, a computer-performed claim is examined under Section 3(k), not Section 3(m).
Not on its own. The Delhi High Court held that a nominal or post-solution physical step, such as displaying, presenting, or printing an outcome, does not remove a claim from Section 3(m) if the substance of the monopoly, read as a whole, remains a mental act. The physical means must be integral to performing the claimed steps, not added on afterward.
The underlying application was already remanded for de novo consideration by an earlier order dated 26 February 2026. The appeal stayed open only to settle the Section 3(m) guidelines; with that done, the Court closed it, directing that the guidelines be placed before the Controller General for appropriate steps within six weeks of receipt.
This analysis is prepared by Intepat’s patent practice, which advises applicants on Section 3 objections raised during examination and opposition proceedings before the Indian Patent Office.
This article explains the law on Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 in India as at August 2026 and is for general information only. It is not legal advice. Government fees, forms, and procedures change; confirm current figures with the Indian Patent Office before you file. For advice on your specific invention, consult a registered patent agent.
Verified as of August 2026, against the full text of the Delhi High Court’s order in C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 149/2022.