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

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

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article