As blockchain technology and digital assets continue to transform industries worldwide, India has emerged as both a major innovation hub and a critical jurisdiction for intellectual property protection in the Web3 space. The intersection of cutting-edge blockchain technologies with traditional IP frameworks presents unique challenges and opportunities that require sophisticated legal strategies and deep technical understanding.

In this comprehensive Q&A, Gaurav Chhibber, Partner and Patent Attorney at Chadha & Chadha Intellectual Property Law Firm, shares his expertise on the evolving landscape of IP protection for blockchain and cryptocurrency innovations in India. With extensive experience in AI, machine learning, computing technologies, and international patent matters, including his background with global corporations like Tata Motors, Gaurav brings a unique perspective to the complex challenges facing crypto startups, NFT creators, and Web3 companies seeking to protect their innovations.

Gaurav's insights explore three critical areas where blockchain technology intersects with intellectual property law: navigating India's patent landscape for blockchain innovations in light of the landmark Computer-Related Inventions Guidelines 2025, understanding the IP implications of NFTs for creators and investors, and developing effective cross-border IP strategies for global blockchain ventures. His responses reflect the rapidly evolving nature of this practice area, where traditional IP frameworks must adapt to accommodate revolutionary technologies that challenge established legal concepts. For IP attorneys, blockchain entrepreneurs, and technology companies operating in the digital asset space, this discussion provides essential guidance on protecting innovations, avoiding infringement, and building robust IP portfolios in one of the world's most dynamic and important technology markets.

Question 1: Patent Protection for Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Innovations

Given your expertise in AI, machine learning, and computing technologies, how are you advising clients on patent strategies for blockchain-based innovations? What are the key patentability challenges for cryptocurrency protocols, consensus mechanisms, and DeFi applications under Indian patent law? How do you navigate the intersection between software patents and blockchain technology, particularly given the evolving jurisprudence around computer-implemented inventions in India?

Patents grant exclusive rights only when an invention satisfies the statutory requirements of patentability. At a minimum an invention must be novel. It must involve an inventive step, and it must be capable of industrial application. An application must also meet disclosure requirements such as sufficiency of description, clear and supported claims, and enablement so that a person skilled in the art can carry out the invention.

There is another consideration that is especially important for software and blockchain-related inventions. Under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, mathematical methods algorithms, business methods, and computer programs “per se” are excluded from patentability. This exclusion is the single most critical patentability issue for any software-related invention including cryptocurrency protocols, consensus algorithms, and DeFi applications in India. Because blockchain inventions are typically grounded in cryptographic algorithms and complex data structures, a patent application must go beyond abstract descriptions and disclose the cryptographic methods, particular data structures, and the way the consensus mechanism interacts with hardware, network architectures, or other system components to produce a concrete and reproducible technical effect.

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has published the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the CRI Guidelines 2025) on July 29, 2025, that serve as the standard for examination of patent applications involving computer programs, algorithms, mathematical methods, business methods, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), blockchain, quantum computing, and related emerging technologies.

The CRI Guidelines, 2025, mark a doctrinal shift and codify the long-standing judicial focus on material “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, or “technical contribution”. The recommendation starts with keeping in mind the fundamental proposition that a blockchain-based invention should solve a “technical problem” and establish a material "technical effect" or "technical contribution" to qualify as patentable, which differentiates it from an unpatentable business method or mathematical formula or an algorithm. The guidelines are explicit that the mere availability of a computer program in a claim does not automatically render it ineligible if the subject matter contains a “technical advancement”. Innovators must therefore frame their disclosures and claims around how the invention addresses an actual technical challenge in the real world, such as enhancing data security, speeding up a computer or network, or utilizing memory more efficiently. For example, a new way to secure transactions or a better consensus protocol that materially improves network speed should be emphasized as technical contributions.

Applied to blockchain technologies, these principles impose specific sufficiency and enablement requirements. Blockchain patent applications should include detailed descriptions of cryptographic techniques, consensus mechanisms (for example Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, hybrid protocols etc.), block and data structures, and the relevant network or hardware interactions. Where smart contracts are involved, the specification should disclose high-level functionality and auto-triggering conditions. If the inventive step is said to lie in contract logic, the application may provide further technical details such as fallback mechanisms, external oracle integration so that the technical nature of the innovation is clear and reproducible. This kind of technical depth helps ensure claims are treated as more than an abstract business logic.

DeFi platforms are particularly vulnerable to being characterized as business processes. To avoid that outcome, applicants should avoid framing the invention as merely a financial innovation. Instead, the specification and claims should highlight the technical problem being solved and the system-level or hardware/network consequences of the solution. For instance, describing how a protocol reduces transaction latency across the network, improves cryptographic resilience to specific classes of attacks, or materially optimizes storage and retrieval in distributed ledgers will support a technical contribution narrative. Practical implementation details that show interaction with hardware, networking layers, or off-chain components strengthen the case.

The CRI Guidelines, 2025, also provide illustrative examples that demonstrate how sufficient technical disclosure can move a blockchain application outside the Section 3(k) exclusion. One example describes a blockchain-based rental agreement system where smart contracts verify cryptocurrency payments, issue digital access tokens, and immutably record events. Another example describes a blockchain-enabled supply chain solution that combines a hybrid consensus model, off-chain anchoring using Merkle trees, and IoT/oracle integration for real-time tracking. Both examples highlight the value of describing protocol flows, data structures, and system interfaces so the claimed invention produces a reproducible technical effect rather than merely implementing abstract business rules.

Overall, the intellectual property space for blockchain and cryptocurrency technologies in India remains a fluid area, and recommending clients on a patenting strategy must be approached cautiously. The recent trend is that blockchain inventions can be patented when they are drafted to emphasize technical contribution and practical implementation. The CRI Guidelines represent a major step in India’s jurisprudence. By codifying settled judicial principles, including the “technical effect” test as articulated in cases such as Ferid Allani v. Union of India, the guidelines reduce legal uncertainty for entrepreneurs and align India closer with international practice while insisting on a well-written technical narrative and increased disclosure from the outset. Applicants should therefore focus on comprehensive technical disclosure and align their claims with the CRI Guidelines, 2025, to secure meaningful protection.

Question 2: NFTs and Intellectual Property Rights - Protection and Infringement

As someone with experience across multiple IP domains including copyrights and trademarks, what IP considerations should creators, marketplaces, and investors understand when dealing with NFTs? How do traditional IP frameworks apply to digital collectibles, and what strategies do you recommend for protecting original works that are tokenized? What are the emerging legal challenges around NFT copyright infringement and trademark issues that you're seeing in practice?

An essential distinction for artists, marketplaces, and investors working with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) is that an NFT is not the creative work itself. An NFT is a cryptographic entry on a blockchain. The token acts as a verifiable record of ownership or authenticity for a particular digital asset.

Intellectual property rights in the underlying creative content, such as a digital image or video, remain with the creator unless there is an independent, express transfer or license executed in writing. This mirrors the traditional art market where the sale of a physical painting does not transfer the copyright unless explicitly assigned. Existing IP frameworks apply directly to NFTs. Copyright automatically subsists in original works once they are fixed in a tangible medium. Tokenization does not change that fundamental principle.

To protect works that have been tokenized, creators should adopt a clear licensing strategy. Licenses can be embedded in smart contracts or hyperlinked on a project’s website and should precisely state the scope of rights granted to the purchaser, for example personal use only or broad commercial rights. A well-crafted licensing approach allows creators to retain ownership of their IP, enables automatic enforcement mechanisms such as royalty payments on resale, and preserves contractual clarity for downstream users.

Blockchain’s immutable ledger provides a strong evidentiary advantage. An on-chain timestamp tied to the minting event can serve as corroborating evidence of authorship or priority in disputes over originality. While this does not replace formal copyright registration where available, it is a valuable piece of objective evidence in IP disputes.

Recent litigation from other jurisdictions has clarified how traditional trademark and copyright doctrines apply to NFTs. The Hermès v. Rothschild dispute resulted in a jury finding that the artist’s “MetaBirkins” NFTs were likely to cause consumer confusion with Hermès’ trademarks. That outcome shows that brands can enforce trademark rights against unauthorized digital representations when the use is commercial and likely to confuse consumers. In a separate matter, the Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps litigation treated NFTs as goods for trademark law purposes and rejected the contention that NFTs are merely intangible expressive content outside the scope of trademark protection. These decisions underscore that brand owners can and will seek protection in the NFT space.

Practically, a two-fold IP strategy is advisable for NFT projects. First, secure trademark protection for the token name, symbol, and any brand elements tied to the collection to prevent consumer confusion and misuse. Second, manage copyrights and licensing for the underlying artwork through clear, machine-readable licenses or smart-contract provisions that specify permitted uses and royalty entitlements. Combining trademark protection for the token layer with robust copyright and licensing controls for the creative layer gives projects the best chance of preventing infringement and preserving commercial value.

In India, these legal areas are still evolving. Tokenization and NFT-specific disputes have not yet produced a large body of reported litigation domestically. As a result, the legal landscape remains in an initial stage of development.

Question 3: Cross-Border IP Strategy for Crypto and Web3 Companies

Drawing from your experience with PCT matters and international patent portfolios, including your time at Tata Motors, how should crypto startups and blockchain companies approach global IP protection? What are the key considerations for filing patent applications across different jurisdictions for blockchain innovations, and how do varying international standards for software patents affect strategy? What role does IP play in the due diligence process for crypto investments and M&A transactions?

A good way to proceed for securing global rights is to begin by filing patents, copyrights, or trademarks in India and then leverage the various international treaties for broader protection. For patents, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) offers a streamlined mechanism to secure rights in up to 158 contracting states. For trademarks, the Madrid Protocol provides a centralized system to apply for protection across more than 130 countries. For copyrights, while protection is automatic upon creation under the Berne Convention, registering in India first provides a strong evidentiary basis, and international enforcement is facilitated through treaties such as the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT).

This approach offers multiple advantages. Filing first in India not only establishes a priority date but also allows startups to defer the significant costs of multiple international filings until they have tested market potential, attracted funding, or secured partnerships. For patents, the PCT route allows up to 30 or 31 months (depending on the jurisdiction) before entering national phases, providing valuable flexibility. For trademarks, the Madrid system reduces administrative complexity by centralizing applications, renewals, and modifications. For copyrights, early registration helps in proving ownership, which is particularly critical in enforcement proceedings across jurisdictions. In short, beginning locally and then expanding globally through treaties maximizes efficiency while keeping costs and risks manageable.

Different international standards for software patents influence this worldwide strategy directly. Whereas the United States is focusing on practical utility and technical contribution over an abstract idea, the European Patent Office (EPO) and India also follow a more stringent technical effect test whereby a computer program to be patentable must solve a technical problem. China, home to 90% of worldwide blockchain patent filings, has standards very close to European but with one significant omission for virtual currency and miner-related claims. These nuances make it likely a one-size-fits-all set of claims won't be successful worldwide.

Therefore, the best approach for initial filing is to draft as many claims for protection as possible, since different jurisdictions require tailoring and narrowing of claims to meet their specific rules. Limiting claims too early may restrict flexibility later. Taking the case of India as an example, as discussed above patent examiners follow the Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) guidelines, which are not binding rules but interpretive guidance. This means examiners and controllers may insist on altering the scope of claims by requiring additional disclosures to satisfy these guidelines. If such information has not been disclosed in the first application, making these adjustments later may not be possible. Drafting comprehensive claims and descriptions at the outset ensures global adaptability and reduces the risk of rejection in key.

Want to contribute to our Q&A series? If you're a legal expert in the web3/AI space and would like to share your expertise by joining our Q&A series, please reach out to hi@databirdjournal.com