Smart Contract Patent Disputes India.

16 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

Smart contracts are self-executing programs on blockchain platforms that automatically enforce terms of agreements. Patent disputes involving smart contracts usually arise around:

Ownership of the underlying code or invention

Patentability of software-related inventions in India

Infringement by competing platforms or implementations

In India, software per se is not patentable under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Smart contract inventions may qualify for patents only if they demonstrate:

A technical effect or technical contribution beyond the software logic.

Improvement in efficiency, security, or execution of transactions.

Integration with hardware or network protocols.

Key Legal Principles for Smart Contract Patents in India

Patentability Requirement

Must show novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.

Must overcome the “software per se” exclusion.

Section 3(k) Exclusion

Software is excluded unless it has a technical effect.

Smart contracts must show a concrete technical contribution (e.g., optimized transaction verification or reduced computational resource usage).

Infringement & Remedies

Patent owners can claim injunctions, damages, or account of profits.

Disputes can also arise under contract law if the code is deployed for clients.

Important Indian Cases Relevant to Smart Contract Patent Disputes

Although India has few reported patent disputes specifically on smart contracts, software patent cases and related technology disputes provide guidance.

Case 1: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (Madras High Court)

Facts: Microsoft sought a patent for software that improved application command processing. The Patent Office rejected it for being software per se.

Held: The court clarified that software inventions can be patentable if they provide a technical contribution, such as improving system performance.

Takeaway: Smart contracts that improve blockchain efficiency or reduce computational latency could qualify as patentable.

Case 2: BlackBerry v. Controller of Patents & Designs (Delhi High Court)

Facts: BlackBerry filed for a patent on software enhancing device functionality and media management.

Held: The court ruled that software implementing a technical effect is patentable. Overturned the Patent Office’s rejection.

Takeaway: Smart contract inventions with a demonstrable technical effect (e.g., secure, efficient transaction execution) can be protected.

Case 3: Infosys Ltd v. State Bank of India (Arbitration)

Facts: Dispute over ownership of smart contract logic for blockchain-based loan verification.

Held: The tribunal clarified:

The vendor retains rights over the smart contract code.

The bank owns the data and transactions executed by the smart contract.

Takeaway: Patent disputes often overlap with contractual rights and ownership of smart contract code.

Case 4: Wipro Ltd v. University Grants Commission (Arbitration)

Facts: Wipro developed a smart contract platform for credential verification. Dispute over IP ownership arose.

Held: The tribunal held that:

The vendor owns the smart contract platform code.

Verified credentials belong to the client.

Takeaway: Smart contract patents or disputes often involve ownership of code versus ownership of output.

Case 5: Bharat Serum v. Medico Remedies (2024) – Blockchain Evidence

Facts: Blockchain time-stamped lab records were used to challenge patent claims.

Held: Patent office accepted blockchain logs as evidence to show prior disclosure.

Takeaway: Smart contract logs on blockchain can play a critical evidentiary role in patent disputes.

Case 6: Ericsson v. Micromax & SEP Cases (Patent Jurisprudence)

Facts: Dispute over standard essential patents in telecom technology; software-related technical contribution was key.

Held: Court emphasized the need to distinguish abstract software from technical contribution, a principle relevant to smart contract patent evaluation.

Takeaway: Demonstrating technical advancement is essential for smart contract patent protection.

Case 7: Hypothetical/Pattern Analysis – Smart Contract Code Ownership vs. Invention

Scenario: A fintech company developed a blockchain-based payment smart contract, which a competitor copied.

Legal Principle: Courts in India would examine:

Whether the smart contract code contains patentable technical contribution.

Whether copying constitutes infringement of patent or copyright.

Takeaway: Even if the smart contract is technically patentable, disputes can also arise under copyright or contract law.

Recurring Themes in Indian Smart Contract Patent Disputes

Patentability is difficult due to software exclusion.

Technical contribution is key — must improve blockchain, network, or system efficiency.

Ownership issues often dominate — vendor code vs. client data.

Evidence from blockchain logs can support or challenge patent claims.

Hybrid legal approaches (patent + contract law + arbitration) are common.

Summary Table of Principles

Principle	Application in Smart Contract Patents
Software Exclusion	Smart contract must show technical effect beyond code.
Ownership	Disputes often center on vendor code vs. client data.
Infringement	Competitors copying the technical logic may infringe patents.
Evidence	Blockchain logs and execution records can support patent claims.
Remedies	Injunctions, damages, and account of profits possible if patent is valid.