Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: An Indian Perspective

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised force and acquired the greatest importance in the 21st century, especially in the fields of pharmaceuticals, engineering, and software development. However, the legal recognition of AI-generated inventions is not getting legal value because the laws do not support the Indian Patent legal phenomena. The reason behind this issue is there is no provision concerning the inventions by non-human inventors. The existing Indian Patent framework, governed by the Patent Act 1970, mandates only human inventorship, which leads to challenges in securing Patent protection for AI-generated innovations. This research paper delves into the complex issues related to AI-generated inventions, the legal position and provisions, the judicial approach and the global perspectives. It further provides the ethical and technical implications of AI inventorship and the reforms to align Indian patent laws with the advancement of technology¹.

Keywords: Intellectual Property, AI-Inventions, Patent Act, Modification, Inventions, Artificial Intelligence.

1. Introduction

The advancement of AI has had a significant impact and it altered the landscape of innovation, because of this advancement complex issues have been raised around intellectual property (IP) protection. Traditionally, patents have been only granted to human inventions that demonstrate novelty, inventive steps and industrial applicability. However, AI systems have independently created patentable inventions, promoting legal debates worldwide².

In India, the Patents Act 1970 governs the legal framework of Patentability³. Section 6 of the Act only empowers the “Person” to apply for a patent, and this excludes the AI from being recognised as an inventor. Furthermore, Sections 3 & 4 of the Act disallow patents, especially Sec.3(k) of the Act, which prohibits patents for mathematical or business methods, computer programs and algorithms unless they demonstrate a technical effect. This legal framework presents significant challenges in accommodating AI-generated inventions, leading to uncertainties in their patentability.

The issue and debates around the validity of AI-generated inventions are universal. Courts in the US, UK and EU have rules that an AI system cannot be named as an inventor. In the Thaler v. Iancu⁴ case in the US and the Thaler V. UKIPO⁵ case in the UK in these case the court held that patents must be attributed to human inventors. Same observation in India, Ferid Allani V. Union of India⁶ (2019) This doesn’t clarify the validity of the AI-generated inventions, but it clarifies that software-based innovations must demonstrate technical advancements to qualify for patent protection.

This vacuum creates a lack of clarity on AI-generated inventions and poses potential risks to India’s innovation-driven economy. Why AI is important in today’s century because AI can accelerate technological advancements in the pharmaceuticals, automation, and software industries. To resolve these challenges there is need for certain amendments in existing legal frameworks or judicial precedents that accommodate AI-assisted inventorship.

2. Literature Review

Many scholars have examined the challenges associated with patenting AI-generated inventions. However, case studies and legal frameworks highlight that the Indian legal system and judiciary do not specifically adjudicate AI-generated patents⁷. The case laws in the UK and the US have denied the importance of AI-generated inventions, but Indian courts observe that AI-generated inventions must show the advancement factors for the technical effect⁸. The scholars argue that this lack of clarity leads to discouragement of AI-driven research and development. Compared to Australia, they have shown greater flexibility by recognising AI-generated inventions under certain conditions⁹.

3. Methodology

The methodology referred for this research approach is analysing statutory provisions of the Act, judicial precedents, and the global impact of the patent law trends. The doctrinal sources include the Indian Patents Act 1970¹⁰ and relevant Indian and international case laws¹¹. Secondary sources include legal commentaries, scholarly articles and reports from organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)¹². The object of this examination is to identify the gap in the Indian legal framework and propose a solution to it.

4. Results

The research findings indicate that the current Indian patent system does not recognise AI as an inventor, and the lack of judiciary precedent creates legal hurdles. Sec.6 and Sec 3(k) of the Patent Act¹³ explicitly restrict the patent applications to AI entities. In the case of Ferid Allani V. Union of India (2019)¹⁴, this judgment led to some relief by recognising that software-based innovations could lead to patentability if they provide advancement to the technical world. However, this interpretation does not directly address AI-generated inventions. As compared to the International courts in the US, UK, and EU have upheld that only natural persons can be inventors¹⁵.

A significant observation from this research is that India’s current legal stance on AI-generated inventions could lead stance on AI-generated inventions could create an innovation revolution. If this practice continues, then it creates a barrier to the advancement of technology in this 21st century, and ultimately, it leads to economic setbacks. To solve this problem, there is a strong need for a properly structured approach to recognise and regulate AI-generated patents. While other countries opposing to grant patents to AI-generated innovations India can provide the guiding principles from the balanced approach that safeguards human oversight while acknowledging AI’s contributions¹⁶.

5. Discussion

The core issue in AI patentability lies in the definition of “inventor”. Indian law, like other countries, also believes that inventorship is a human attribute only, so there is no scope for AI-generated inventions¹⁷. AI gives vast datasets and generates innovative solutions which challenge the traditional concept of human ingenuity. The multiple jurisdictions serve as critical reference points, with courts consistently rejecting the importance of AI-generated innovations. However, it is highly argued that avoiding the importance of AI-generated innovations leads to discouraging investment in AI-driven research¹⁸. In India, it is clear through the case in 2019¹⁹ that innovations which provide advancement to technology will be considered to be AI-generated patents, but still, it needs proper provisions and accountability where ensure human oversight. AI innovations will play a very crucial role in pharmaceuticals and automation²⁰.

6. Conclusion

Our patent laws need to address the complexities of AI-generated inventions. While AI-generated innovations are essential for economic growth, the absence of legal provisions for AI inventorship creates uncertainty.²¹

Summary: This paper examined the challenges associated with patenting AI-generated inventions in India, focusing on legal barriers, international perspectives, and potential solutions. The findings suggest that India must reform its patent laws to keep pace with technological advancements.²²

Recommendations: To address these challenges, India should:

• Amend Section 6 of the Patents Act to include AI-assisted inventorship.
• Modify Section 3(k) to recognize AI-driven inventions demonstrating technical effects.
• Develop guidelines for attributing AI-generated inventions to human entities or organizations.
• Promote international cooperation in AI patent law harmonization.²³

A balanced approach is needed to foster innovation while maintaining legal clarity and accountability.

7. References

1. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/sections-index.html
2. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights
3. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372 161/full
4. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2020cv00903/48340 4/33/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2020cv00903/4 83404/33/
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/
6. https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2024/02/ho w-ai-inventorship-is-evolving-in-the-uk-eu-and-us–law360.pdf%3Frev=e7c3c3889e754a b0a08515ba66b194b8
7. https://www.wipo.int/tech_trends/en/artificial_intelligence/story.html
8. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372 161/full

8. Footnotes

1.  https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372161/full ↩︎
2. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
3. https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/sections-index.html ↩︎
4. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1:2020cv00903/483404/33/ ↩︎
5. https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/1416432/thaler-v-comptroller-general-supreme-court-affirms-that-an-ai-cann ot-be-an-inventor-under-uk-patent-law ↩︎
6.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/ ↩︎
7. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/ ↩︎
8. https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2024/02/how-ai-inventorship-is-evolvi ng-in-the-uk-eu-and-us–law360.pdf%3Frev=e7c3c3889e754ab0a08515ba66b194b8 ↩︎
9. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
10.  https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
11. https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2024/02/how-ai-inventorship-is-evolvi ng-in-the-uk-eu-and-us–law360.pdf%3Frev=e7c3c3889e754ab0a08515ba66b194b8 ↩︎
12.  https://www.wipo.int/tech_trends/en/artificial_intelligence/story.html ↩︎
13.  https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
14.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/ ↩︎
15. https://www.wipo.int/tech_trends/en/artificial_intelligence/story.html ↩︎
16. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
17. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/ ↩︎
18. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372161/full ↩︎
19.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90686424/ ↩︎
20. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎
21. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372161/full ↩︎
22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1372161/full ↩︎
23. https://indiaai.gov.in/ai-standards/ai-and-intellectual-property-rights ↩︎