The Philippines: Examination guidelines for ICT and computer related inventions

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

The Philippines: Examination guidelines for ICT and computer related inventions

On January 17 2018, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines issued its Guidelines on the Examination of Information Communications Technology (ICT) and Computer Implemented Inventions (CII), as a result of increasing demand for patent protection in these fields. In the past, patent examiners applied the general guidelines for patent examination, but difficulties encountered by patent examiners resulting in inconsistent decisions on patent grants and refusals necessitated the issuance of separate examination guidelines. These guidelines do not have the force of law but are meant to assist the examiners in determining whether the claimed inventions comply with the substantive law (Sections 21 and 22 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (IP Code) and its Implementing Rules 201 and 202).

ICT refers to all electronic means to access, create, collect, store, process, receive, transmit, present and disseminate information. CII are inventions involving computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus where prima facie one or more of the features are realised by means of a program or programs. The guidelines apply to the examination of patent applications for inventions in the ICT field such as information systems, communication systems, telecommunications, radio communications, computer implemented systems, software related systems, data mining systems, computer information networking systems, computer operating systems, embedded systems, data warehousing systems, network and data security systems, multimedia design systems, content delivery systems, digital broadcasting, graphic representation devices, website development platforms, application development platforms, system development platforms, cloud computing infrastructure, ubiquitous computing frameworks, mobile computing systems, internet of things (IoT) infrastructure, virtual infrastructure, electronic commerce systems, electronic services systems, electronic workflow frameworks, object modelling systems, image or video processing systems, photonics systems, machine learning systems, artificial intelligence systems, distributed systems, robotic systems, sensing devices and big media modelling systems.

Section 21 of the IP Code defines an invention capable of being patented as any technical solution to a problem in any new field of human activity which involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable, and may be or may relate to a product, a process or an improvement thereof. Section 22 lists inventions that are non-patentable, and those which relate to ICT and CII are further explained in Rule 202. Under this rule, the following are excluded from patent protection:

a) discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, a law of nature, a scientific truth or knowledge of such;

b) abstract ideas or theories, fundamental concepts, apart from the means or processes for carrying out the concepts to produce a technical effect;

c) schemes, rules, and methods for performing mental acts and playing games;

d) method of doing business, such as a method or system for transacting business without the technical means for carrying out the method or system;

e) programs for computers.



Hechanova

Editha R Hechanova

Hechanova & Co., Inc.

Salustiana D. Ty Tower

104 Paseo de Roxas Avenue

Makati City 1229, Philippines

Tel: (63) 2 812-6561

Fax: (63) 2 888-4290

editharh@hechanova.com.ph 

www.hechanova.com.ph

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article