1) The Philippine patent system in one frame

Patentable subject matter in the Philippines is governed primarily by the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293, as amended) and implemented by the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) through its regulations and examination practice.

At its core, Philippine patent law protects inventions—technical solutions to problems—through patents on products and processes, including improvements. But not everything new or useful is considered an “invention” for patent purposes: the law draws a line between technical inventions and excluded subject matter (things the law says cannot be patented even if novel).

Two key filters apply:

Does it fall within “patentable subject matter” (is it an invention the law recognizes)?
If yes, does it meet the substantive requirements: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability?

This article focuses on the first filter—what kinds of things qualify—while also explaining how the substantive requirements interact with subject matter in practice.

2) What counts as an “invention” under Philippine law

A. The general rule

An invention is generally a technical solution in the form of:

a product (e.g., a device, composition, material, apparatus), or
a process (e.g., a manufacturing method, a chemical process, a method of controlling a machine), or
an improvement of any of the above.

Philippine practice aligns with the familiar idea that patents protect applied technical ideas, not mere information, abstract concepts, or purely artistic works.

B. “Product” inventions

Common patentable product categories include:

Mechanical devices and systems (machines, tools, consumer products with technical structure)
Electrical and electronic inventions (circuits, sensors, control systems)
Chemical inventions (new compounds, compositions, formulations)
Pharmaceutical compositions (subject to important boundaries discussed below)
Materials (polymers, alloys, composites)
Biotech products such as microorganisms (subject to exclusions for certain biological subject matter)
Articles of manufacture and technically-defined components

C. “Process” inventions

Common process categories include:

Manufacturing methods
Chemical synthesis processes
Industrial treatment processes (e.g., surface treatment of metals)
Methods for operating a machine or controlling an industrial system
Microbiological processes (with important boundaries)

3) The statutory exclusions: subject matter that cannot be patented

Even if something is new, the law excludes certain categories from patent protection. These exclusions are central to “patentable subject matter” analysis.

A. Discoveries and purely abstract knowledge

Not patentable (as such):

Discoveries (finding something that already exists in nature)
Scientific theories
Mathematical methods

Practical meaning: You cannot patent a law of nature, an equation, or the discovery of a naturally occurring phenomenon by itself. Patentability usually begins when a discovery is turned into a practical technical application (e.g., a new industrial process using a discovered property, or a novel composition isolated/purified and technically characterized in a way recognized as a human-made technical contribution—subject to biotech nuances).

B. Schemes, rules, methods—especially business/mental activity

Not patentable (as such):

Schemes, rules, and methods for performing mental acts
Methods of playing games
Methods of doing business

Practical meaning: A business concept like “dynamic pricing based on demand” or “a loyalty points scheme” is excluded if claimed as a business method. However, inventions that merely relate to business can still be patentable if the claim is directed to a technical system or technical process (e.g., a specific secure transaction architecture with a technical effect), rather than the business idea.

C. Computer programs (the “as such” problem)

Not patentable:

Computer programs, when claimed as such.

What this usually means in practice: A bare claim to “a software program” or “an algorithm” is excluded. But computer-implemented inventions can be patentable when claimed as a technical solution—for example:

a control method for an industrial machine implemented by software,
a signal processing technique with technical effect,
a cybersecurity mechanism improving the functioning/security of a network,
improved data handling tied to technical constraints (e.g., memory, bandwidth, latency) with a demonstrable technical effect.

The line is typically drawn between:

abstract computation or business logic (excluded), and
technical character / technical effect (potentially patentable).

D. Aesthetic creations

Not patentable:

Aesthetic creations (works whose contribution is artistic/ornamental rather than technical)

Practical meaning: A purely decorative shape or design is generally not patentable as an invention (though it may be protectable as an industrial design if it is new and ornamental, which is a different IP right from patents).

E. Medical methods: treatment and diagnosis

Not patentable:

Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy
Diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal body

Practical meaning:

You generally cannot patent “a method of treating disease X by administering drug Y.”
You generally cannot patent “a method of diagnosing condition Z by performing step A on a patient.”

What may still be patentable in many cases:

medical devices (products)
pharmaceutical compositions (products)
manufacturing processes for medicines
in vitro diagnostic products and technical testing methods not practiced on the body (depending on how claimed)
claims crafted as technical products rather than treatment steps

Philippine law’s policy is to avoid granting exclusive rights over clinical acts performed on bodies, while still allowing patents on technical products and industrial processes.

F. Plants, animals, and essentially biological processes

Not patentable:

Plant varieties
Animal breeds
Essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals

Typically not excluded:

Microorganisms
Non-biological and microbiological processes
Certain biotech inventions framed as technical interventions rather than conventional breeding (subject to the “essentially biological” boundary)

Practical meaning: Traditional breeding methods and the resulting plant varieties/animal breeds are excluded from patent protection. Protection for plant varieties is generally addressed under a separate plant variety protection regime rather than patents. Microbiological inventions and processes can be patentable when they meet the requirements and are not caught by the exclusions.

G. Morality, public order, and harmful inventions

Not patentable:

inventions contrary to public order or morality

Practical meaning: This is a “safety valve” exclusion. It is not about mere controversy; it targets inventions whose exploitation would be unacceptable under Philippine public policy.

4) Subject matter that is eligible, but often fails on other requirements

A large share of real-world rejections happen not because the subject matter is excluded, but because the claimed invention doesn’t satisfy novelty, inventive step, or disclosure rules. Still, these issues often look like “subject matter” problems because they arise in borderline domains.

A. Mere “ideas” versus enabling technical teaching

A claim that is eligible in principle (e.g., “a system that optimizes traffic”) may fail if the application:

does not teach how to implement the technical solution, or
only states a desired result without technical means.

This is especially common for software, AI/ML, and business-adjacent inventions.

B. Natural products and “discoveries” dressed as inventions

If the core contribution is simply identifying something found in nature, it risks being treated as an unpatentable discovery unless the claim and disclosure establish a human-made technical contribution (e.g., a technically characterized composition, a new industrial application, a non-obvious process, etc.). The patentability analysis here is heavily claim-dependent.

C. Diagnostic methods and “on the body” practice

Even if the technical idea is strong, it may be excluded if the claim is framed as a diagnostic method practiced on the body. Often, patentability turns on whether the claim is directed to:

an in vitro method on a sample outside the body,
a device/system, or
a technical process not requiring performance on the body.

5) The three substantive requirements (because subject matter and patentability interact)

Even if an invention is eligible subject matter, it must meet:

A. Novelty

The invention must not be anticipated by prior art—public disclosures anywhere in the world, typically before the filing/priority date.

Philippine law recognizes a limited non-prejudicial disclosure concept in certain circumstances (commonly understood as a grace period for specific inventor-derived disclosures under defined conditions). In practice, relying on any grace period is risky; the safest path is to file before disclosure.

B. Inventive step

The invention must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art in view of prior art. Many borderline “software” and “business-adjacent” inventions fail here if the “technical” differences are routine implementation choices.

C. Industrial applicability

The invention must be capable of being made or used in some kind of industry (broadly understood). Purely speculative or non-operational concepts can fail here.

6) Borderline categories and how they are commonly assessed

A. Software and computer-implemented inventions

Commonly patentable (if properly claimed and supported):

industrial control software tied to physical processes
signal processing and communications protocols
security mechanisms and improved network performance
hardware-software interaction producing a technical effect

Commonly rejected:

pure algorithms or mathematical models
business logic implemented on generic computing
UI/UX ideas without a technical contribution
“do it on a computer” claims without technical detail

Drafting takeaway: Anchor the invention in technical architecture, technical constraints, and measurable technical effects, not just functional outcomes.

B. Business-related inventions

A business method per se is excluded. But inventions that operate in a business setting may be patentable if the novelty lies in a technical solution, such as:

cryptographic authentication system design
tamper-resistant transaction logging with technical features
bandwidth/latency optimization in payment networks

C. AI and machine learning

AI inventions are typically examined through the same lenses:

Is the claim merely a mathematical method/algorithm (excluded)?
Or is it a technical application (eligible), such as improved image processing in a medical device, anomaly detection improving network security, or control optimization in a physical system?

The more the claimed contribution looks like “a better model,” the more it risks exclusion or obviousness. The more it looks like “a technical system improved in a technical way,” the stronger the case.

D. Biotech, microorganisms, and biological processes

Microorganisms and microbiological processes are often eligible.
Plant varieties/animal breeds and essentially biological processes are excluded.
Patentability often depends on whether the claimed subject matter is a technical intervention beyond conventional breeding, and whether the application provides sufficient disclosure (including how to reproduce/obtain the biological material where required).

E. Pharmaceuticals and medical innovations

Treatment methods are excluded.
Products (compounds/compositions) and industrial processes can be patentable.
Claim strategy often focuses on compositions, dosage forms, manufacturing methods, delivery devices, and non-obvious formulations—while avoiding claims that read like clinical treatment steps.

7) Claiming strategies that keep inventions on the “patentable subject matter” side

Because exclusions often turn on how you claim, not just what you invented, eligibility is frequently a drafting issue.

A. Prefer technical categories

When appropriate, claims framed as:

apparatus/system/device
method of operating a machine
industrial process
composition/formulation are generally safer than claims framed as abstract methods.

B. Tie software to technical effect

Instead of “a method of pricing,” emphasize:

secure transaction processing architecture,
reduced processing time,
improved storage efficiency,
network load balancing,
hardware-level control,
measurable technical improvements.

C. Avoid “on the body” diagnostic/treatment framing

Where the invention is diagnostic, consider whether it can be claimed as:

an in vitro testing method on a sample outside the body,
a diagnostic device,
a technical process not requiring steps performed on the body.

D. Make the disclosure do real work

Philippine patent law requires that the application disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Subject-matter-adjacent rejections often arise when applications describe results instead of enabling technical teaching.

8) Practical examples (Philippine-eligibility lens)

Eligible (typical)

A new mechanical fastening mechanism with defined structure
A new chemical composition with defined constituents and demonstrated effect
A method of manufacturing a polymer using specific reaction conditions
A device and control logic that stabilizes voltage in a power system
A network security system that reduces attack surface via a specific technical mechanism

Excluded (typical)

A newly discovered natural correlation with no technical application
A pure mathematical optimization method claimed abstractly
A business method for allocating investments
A computer program claimed as software code or algorithm alone
A method of treating a patient by administering a known drug regimen
A diagnostic method practiced on the human body

Borderline (depends on claim + disclosure)

A machine-learning method: excluded if claimed as math; eligible if claimed as technical improvement in a system
A plant-related invention: excluded if it is a variety or breeding process; potentially eligible if it is a microbiological/non-biological technical process not caught by the exclusion
A diagnostic innovation: excluded if it requires steps practiced on the body; potentially eligible if in vitro/device-based

9) Relationship to other protection routes (important in “what qualifies”)

When something does not qualify for a patent (or cannot clear inventive step), Philippine IP law often still provides other routes:

A. Utility model (UM)

A utility model is a separate right that can protect certain technical innovations that may not satisfy the inventive step standard required for patents. It typically suits incremental mechanical/structural innovations.

Key practical points:

It is not a patent, but it protects technical solutions in product form.
It can be an important fallback where patent inventive step is hard to establish.

B. Industrial design

For ornamental appearance (shape/configuration/pattern/ornamentation) rather than technical function, industrial design protection is often the correct route.

C. Copyright, trade secrets, and trademarks

Software code is often protected by copyright (expression), even when not patentable (function/idea).
Trade secrets can protect algorithms, processes, and know-how if secrecy is maintained.
Trademarks protect brands, not inventions.

10) A practical checklist for “does this qualify for a Philippine patent?”

Is it a technical solution (not merely information, an idea, or an aesthetic work)?
Can it be framed as a product or process with technical features?
Does it fall into any exclusion?
- discovery/theory/math method?
- mental act/game/business method?
- computer program as such?
- aesthetic creation?
- medical treatment/diagnosis on the body?
- plant variety/animal breed/essentially biological process?
- contrary to public order/morality?
If eligible, can you demonstrate:
- novelty over prior art,
- inventive step (non-obvious technical advance),
- industrial applicability, and
- sufficient disclosure to enable practice?

11) The bottom line

In the Philippines, inventions qualify for patents when they are technical products or processes (including improvements) that do not fall within the statutory exclusions—especially exclusions for discoveries, abstract methods, business methods, computer programs as such, aesthetic creations, medical treatment/diagnosis on the body, and certain plant/animal subject matter and essentially biological processes. Eligibility is often decided not only by the underlying innovation but by how it is claimed and how concretely it is disclosed as a technical solution.