INTRODUCTION
The swift development of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) has altered the modern picture of innovation and research considerably, re-categorizing the way of how knowledge is created and used. Machine learning and deep neural networks, as AI technologies, are becoming more efficient at analyzing large amounts of data, finding patterns, and coming up with new solutions in a number of different fields, including the pharmaceutical, engineering, and information technology industries. This development has strengthened AI beyond being a mere helping tool to an active contributor to the creative process and has thus undermined the legal principles surrounding creativity and authorship.1
In this paradigm shift, the idea of AI-generated inventions has taken a centre stage. These inventions can be generally divided into human-assisted and autonomous AI products. When it comes to human-assisted AI, the system will be operated under a high level of human control, and the creative input can be made by a natural individual. Autonomous AI systems on the other hand are systems that are run by humans with little human involvement and they automatically produce outputs that would likely meet the requirements of patentability and these are novelty, innovative step and industrial applicability. This difference is key because it has a direct bearing on how inventorship and ownership is established under the current patent law.
The law of patents had traditionally been founded on the concept of human inventorship with natural persons being the only inventors. The Indian patent system, which operates under the Patents Act, 1970, is based on this anthropocentric view because it implicitly holds that the invention is an outcome of human thought. The legal system, therefore, does not support non-human purposes like AI systems as inventors. It leaves a massive loophole in the doctrine, especially in the instances when AI is to act independently and produce inventions without direct human involvement, which will make the current legal framework even less efficient.2
The increasing use of AI-based innovation highlights the necessity of a legal change in India. The lack of specifications on the inventions produced by AI creates confusion on which ones can be patented, who is the inventor, and the owner. The fact that things are not clear can be a turn off, for people working on Artificial Intelligence research and development which will slow down the progress of technology. So people who make laws really need to think about the way things are done now and figure out how to solve the problem of encouraging new ideas through laws that can change and adapt without messing up the basic principles of patent law. Artificial Intelligence research and development needs to be encouraged in a way that respects patent law.
It is against this background that the current study aims at answering a number of critical research questions. It looks at the question of whether AI can be regarded as an inventor in the current legal system, how the inventions arising out of AI should be owned, and whether the current legal framework is adequate to handle the challenges caused by autonomous technologies. The main aim is to critically examine such matters and suggest a logical and realistic legal solution which would be more appropriate to the Indian setting.
The study employs a doctrinal and analytical approach, which uses the statutory interpretation, judicial statements, and comparison of practices of international developments. The use of secondary sources such as scholarly articles, policy documents and institutional reports has been used to make sure that a thorough coverage of the topic has been covered. The paper is structurally structured into separate parts that address the legal framework, comparative views, challenges, and recommendations and ends with a series of logical conclusions on the future of AI-generated inventions in the area of patent law.
MEANING OF AI-GENERATED INVENTIONS
The growing penetration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the sphere of innovation requires the delicate approach to the technical background of this phenomenon and its changing functions in the inventive process. In the broadest understanding of AI, entails computational systems that are intended to imitate features of human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, as well as decision-making. In its simplest form, AI functions as an algorithm that works with vast amounts of data and finds trends and produces results, which are frequently faster and better when compared to human analysis. The emergence of the more advanced computational models has allowed AI to shift towards adaptive and self-enhancing systems, as opposed to deterministic programming, and thus enlarge its application in research and development.3
The application of several forms of AI systems is especially applicable in the inventive context. Machine Learning (ML) is a branch of AI which allows systems to gain knowledge through data and enhance their functions without required reprogramming. In ML, Deep Learning uses a series of artificial neural networks to cluster together multifaceted and unstructured data (images, speech, molecular structures, etc.). Generative AI More recently, Generative AI has become a potent paradigm with the ability to generate new content, designs, and solutions by learning latent patterns using training data. All these technologies have enabled the creation of creative outputs in areas like drug discovery, material design, and software development, and have erased the line between human creative output and machine creative output.4
One of the main problems of the present discussion is the difference between AI as a tool and AI as an inventor. Historically, AI has been considered as a supportive tool that helps to improve human abilities, and the final creative input belongs to the human user or programmer. In these cases, AI only contributes to the process of the work and the legislation is not worried about such a solution, but the human element is the inventor. Nonetheless, the advent of AI systems that are highly autonomous contradicts this assumption. Some systems can now generate solutions on their own without being directly supervised by human researchers, and it is now possible to consider whether AI can overcome its limitation of tool status and be treated as an inventor itself. This change has some major implications to patent law especially regarding inventorship and ownership.
A famous example of the debate on AI-generated inventions has been the famous DABUS case, where an AI system was named the inventor of two patent applications on a food container and a flashing light device. Some patent offices such as the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union denied such applications arguing that the current legal systems only admit as inventors natural persons. The case brings to view the conceptual constraints of the existing patent regimes regarding the suitability of non-human inventors. In addition to DABUS, AI has also played a major role in discovering new innovations in drug research, including finding potential drug compounds, and in materials science, where it also helped in the discovery of new materials with improved properties. In software, AI systems have also shown the ability to automatically code and optimise algorithms, which also depicts their creative power.5
Behind these developments lies the idea of computational creativity which is the capability of the machines to generate non-obvious, valuable, and novel outputs. As opposed to the conventional software, which functions within a rigid set of predetermined parameters, contemporary AI systems have a level of autonomy because their output cannot be provided through a pre-written program. This autonomy is especially notable with generative models, which are able to generate completely novel designs, conjectures or solutions using acquired patterns. Computational creativity undermines the traditional view of invention as a purely human activity and challenges the base concepts of the attribution of intellectual labour.
Here, the autonomy of AI systems will become a major factor of consideration. On the one hand, the present AI technologies require human intervention to select the data, design the algorithm, and train the system, but on the other hand, their capability to produce innovative results on their own cannot be neglected. This dynamic change requires re-evaluation of the legal and philosophical premises of the patent law especially in regard to the inventorship criteria and the identification of agency of creativity.
To summarise, AI-generated inventions are a paradigm shift in the ecosystem of innovation, which is marked by the rise in the level of autonomy and creativity of computational systems. Since AI is still developing, legal systems must also evolve, and it is important that it keeps in touch with the reality of technology without losing the essence of the patent system.
PATENT LAW FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
Overview of the Act
The main statutory tool that is used in the protection of inventions in the Republic of India is the Patents Act, 1970.6 It also controls the issue of granting, administering and enforcing patent rights and strives to balance the two requirements of promoting technological innovation and ensuring the common good. The Act defines the features of what would be an invention, legal standards of patentability and it gives the process through which patent protection can be pursued.
The Act provides a comprehensive system of filing, examination, publication, opposition, grant and revocation of patents. It also provides the rights and responsibilities that are held by the owners of patents and legal actions that can be undertaken in case of patent infringement. The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks manage administration of the patent system, and it manages patent offices in the country.
According to the Act, a patent gives the patentee exclusive rights to produce, use, sell or import the invention patented, without unauthorized interference. These are exclusive rights, which last an overall span of twenty years starting the very date of filing, after which the invention is exposed into the public.
After enactment, the Act has been evolving to be in line with the International obligations of India to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), administered by the World Trade Organization. This development has led to the need to align certain provisions of the Indian patent law with the current international standards.
Patentability Requirements
To be considered an invention and be given a patent according to the Patents Act, three basic requirements must be met namely novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.7 All this is to make sure that only inventions that result in a significant technological development are granted patent protection.
a. Novelty
Novelty requirement means that an invention should be new and never revealed to the population, worldwide, before the date of the patent application. Decision on novelty is made by conducting a comparative examination of the invention with the prior existing art, which includes the previous patents, scholarly publications, publicly displayed inventions and technologies that remain, which may be in existence. In case an invention has already been presented in any of these methods, then it will not satisfy the novelty condition, and it will be considered unpatentable.
b. Inventive Step
The inventive step provision stipulates that an invention must portray a technical advancement or economic importance that would not be apparent to an individual in the field in question. The image of a person competent in the art is an imaginary expert of traditional technical competency. This is a necessity that serves to exclude issuing of patents on modifications or standard improvements on existing inventions.
c. Industrial Applicability
In industrial applicability, an invention should have the potentiality of being produced or utilized in any type of industry. The definition of an industry is as broad as possible, covering the field of manufacturing, agriculture, biotechnology, and engineering. This requirement is established to ensure that only inventions that demonstrate practical use are patented and thus not just pure theoretical ideas or abstract concepts.
Section 6: Eligibility of Applicants to Patents
Under Section 6 of the Patents Act, it is not only the inventor who has a right to apply a patent. To suit the modern-day research and innovation practices, the legislation identifies various types of applicants.
First, individual inventors or natural persons can register patents in case they have conceived an invention that meets the statutory provisions of patentability. In that case, the inventor is also both the creator and an applicant of patent protection.
Second, patent applications may also be registered by legal entities such as corporations, universities, research canters and government agencies. Organisational research is often where inventions in the field of numerous modern industries are developed; therefore, inventions are often applied to the patent process by the organisations, where individual researchers are presented as the inventors.
Third, the Act permits an assignee of the inventor to help in the filing of the patent application. An assignee is a natural individual or a legal person to whom the inventor has transferred by contract the right to make application to the patent either by way of employment agreements or assignment contracts.
Lastly, an inventor can be a legal representative of a dead inventor and file a patent application in case the inventor dies before the application is filed.
In Indian Patents Act, a concept of the inventor is embodied by the name of true and first inventor, which means that the inventive idea has been conceived by a person, who is really the inventive genius. The law lays emphasis on intellectual contribution, and it says that the inventor should be the individual who has come up with the creative idea.
There are few people who cannot be considered as inventors, for example, an individual that simply imports an invention to India or she communicates an invention which is manufactured by another individual is not an inventor in the true sense.
The inventor holds a central role in the system of patent because the patent rights are the results of an invention accomplished by the inventor. Although the owner of the patent is a corporate organization or an institution, the inventors are expected to be named in the patent filing. This is necessary to guarantee that intellectual contribution is given due credit and helps to determine legal claim to seek patent protection.
Therefore, the inventor who is the one who conceives the invention and the patentee who is one who owns the patent rights are drawn apart.
Exception 3 (especially sub exception 3(k) of Computer Programs in Isolation)
An invention cannot be patented and in the Patents Act, there is a list of types of subject matter that are not to be considered inventions (Section 3). These exclusions are aimed at ensuring that the patent system does not bring monopoly to abstract ideas, scientific principles, natural discoveries or socially sensitive practices.
One of these exceptions is the exception of subsection 3(k),8 which has become especially popular in the environment of modern digital technologies. It states that mathematical or business methods, a computer programme per se or algorithms will not be counted as patentable inventions.
The words of per se are crucial in a correct interpretation of this provision; the word per se means that a computer programme in a form of isolation, and without any technical application can not be patented. The clause is a good example of an effort to preclude patenting of abstract software logic and at the same time, allow protection of actual technology-based inventions using software.
GLOBAL APPROACHES TO AI INVENTORSHIP
The question of whether artificial intelligence can be thought of as an inventor’s still a big argument in many places around the world. As artificial intelligence gets more involved, in creating things people who deal with patents and even judges have to figure out how to apply old laws to new technology. Artificial intelligence is changing how we come up with ideas and artificial intelligence is making it necessary for us to think about what it means to be an inventor. The comparative study of approaches worldwide indicates that there is a general unwillingness to accept AI as an inventor, but there are also policy discourses that are shifting towards adapting AI-assisted innovation. This is essential to comprehend such developments in order to determine how India will relate to AI inventorship as part of its patent regime.
A. United States
The policy regarding AI inventorship in the United States is still deeply entrenched in the necessity to make it only natural persons who deserve recognition as inventors. The Patent Act says an inventor must be a being according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This was confirmed in the case of Thaler v. Vidal.9 In this case Stephen Thaler tried to register a patent with an AI system called DABUS as its inventor. The court decided that the law clearly states that only human beings can be inventors. The United States Court of Appeals, for the Federal Circuit agreed that the Patent Act only allows natural persons to be inventors. The court underlined that current legal frameworks lack support of non-humans as inventors and, as such, the AI inventorship in the existing law is not a possibility. Such a ruling highlights the textual application followed in the U.S. system.
B. United Kingdom
The United Kingdom does not want to accept Artificial Intelligence as an inventor, like what happened in the DABUS case. The UK Intellectual Property Office says Artificial Intelligence cannot be listed as an inventor because the 1977 Patents Act says the inventor has to be a person. The United Kingdom thinks Artificial Intelligence is not a person so Artificial Intelligence cannot be an inventor. The case went to court times and the courts all agreed that AI cannot be an inventor according to current law. The UK Supreme Court finally approved this decision saying that being an inventor is connected to being a person.10 However, the UK knows AI is playing a role in innovation and has started talking about changing the rules especially for inventions that use AI. The UK is holding consultations to see how they can update their policies, on AI-assisted inventions.
C. European Union
The European Patent Office, which is an entity that works for the European Union and its member states has taken a strong stand, against letting artificial intelligence be named as an inventor. The European Patent Office did this with the DABUS case, where they said no to some patent applications because the rules say a humans name has to be given as the inventor. The EPO justified it by the fact that inventorship has legal consequences such as rights and obligations, which it cannot assign to an AI system. This stance indicates a more European mode of thought that places more emphasis on legal predictability and the observance of the laid down principles of the patent law. However, the EU remains to discuss policies on AI and intellectual property acknowledging the necessity of future adjustments.
D. Australia
The first evidence that Australia was going in a different direction when compared to the global trend was when a Federal Court ruling acknowledged that AI could be identified as an inventor.11 In Thaler v. The court, which was the Commissioner of Patents, found that the word inventor was subject to a wider meaning of both inhuman beings and was a significant deviation as to other jurisdictions. This stand was however not long. This ruling was reversed by the Full Federal Court of Australia later, which reaffirmed that the patent system must have a human inventor.12 The court underlined that the inclusion of AI as an inventor cannot be justified by the intent of the legislature and statutory interpretation. This overturned Australia into the mainstream global strategy.
E. China and Japan’s Policy Approach
China and Japan have embraced a more policy-focused approach contrary to Western jurisdiction, which has mainly responded to AI inventorship lawsuits. The two nations are already in the need of human inventorship but are in the process of considering how to integrate AI-driven innovation into their IP systems. China, specifically, has been proactive in that it has provided guidelines on AI-related inventions and promoted innovation in new technologies. Japan has also taken part in policy deliberation whereby it has been addressing the issue of how AI-assisted inventions should be treated as opposed to the intelligent agent, AI. These are methods of pragmatic compromise between preserving current legal principles and keeping in pace with changing technology.
F. Comparative Analysis of Global Trends
A comparative study of international solutions indicates that there is a great agreement that AI cannot be considered an inventor with regard to existing legal provisions. The need to establish human inventorship has been noted by a number of jurisdictions including the United States, United Kingdom, European Patent Office, and Australia, mostly as a result of the interpretation of statutes and the legal personality concept. Meanwhile, there is an increased awareness of the importance of AI in the creative process. Most jurisdictions are trying to find a way of accommodating the inventions assisted by AI without necessarily changing the definition of an inventor. This involves policy consultations, publication of examination guidelines and scholarly debate on the possible reforms. The global trend is, therefore, an indication of a reserved but changing strategy.
G. Emerging International Consensus vs Dissenting Views
The new international consensus is that, with the current circumstances, inventorship is still restricted to natural persons. This unanimity is fueled by the issues of legal responsibility, property, and the practical considerations of the provision of rights to non-human beings. The causal result has been a conservative practice of courts and patent offices emphasizing legal and not speedy adjustment. Nevertheless, the opposing opinions persist especially among academic and policy makers who believe that the legislature needed to be changed as it ought to adapt to the new technology. Others suggest that AI should be viewed as a tool, not as an inventor, whereas others suggest that they should establish new inventorship categories or sui generis protection of AI-generated inventions.
To sum up, although the global jurisdictions do not accept AI inventorship nowadays, the tendency to reconsider the conventional principles of patenting as they are applied to AI progress is evident. This dynamic environment offers good lessons to India as it deliberates over reforming its own patent system, which is that of establishing a balance between the certainty provided by the law, and the flexibility of technology.
KEY LEGAL ISSUES IN AI GENERATED INVENTION PATENTABILITY
The introduction of intelligence (AI) as a device with the potential to produce potentially patentable inventions has created significant doctrinal problems to the traditional patent law. Such challenges are due to the fact that the legal systems that have remained in place, which are founded on the activities of human inventors, do not easily accept innovation that is created by machines. The analysis of the major legal questions is provided below: artificial
Inventorship: A Dilemma
The most basic issue is related to the problem of inventorship. The patent law, whether it is the domestic or the international one, is still based on the premise that an inventor must be a natural person. This stance has also been solidified by the world judicial rulings that feature the AI system, DABUS, in which the courts have repeatedly refused to accept AI as an inventor.13 The main issue is whether artificial intelligence can be considered as conceiving an invention. The conventional patent theory associates inventorship with mental conception, the process that is inherently related to human cognition. In comparison, AI systems do not possess any kind of legal personality, as they are run through algorithmic processing and, therefore, are not allowed to own rights or have legal status. This establishes a conceptual conflict between machine autonomy and the legal personhood. In spite of the fact that AI can produce outputs on its own, the law still regards the inventor as a human being, most commonly, the creator, consumer, or author of the system. However, this attribution is not necessarily always simple; in most cases, it is hard to decide whether the innovative input is to the developer who created the AI, the user who provided the input, or the organization that controls the system. In such a manner, AI is disruptive to the very concept of inventorship because it no longer draws a clear line between the tool and the creator.
Rights and Ownership
The right and ownership are closely related with the issue of inventorship, which, in its turn, leads to the questions of ownership. Conventionally, an inventor holds the right to a patent which could then be transferred to employers or organizations. However, when the artificial intelligence system comes up with an invention, there is a lack of a legal inventor, creating confusion when it comes to ownership.
Other competitor frameworks have been put forward:
• State-of-developer model The developer is the owner of the AI system.
• User-based model: the ownership is assigned to the user, since it is the user who conceives the invention.
• AI-owner model: the owner or the controller of the AI system is granted the rights.
Although these propositions are made, none of them gives a fully satisfactory answer. Researchers argue that the proprietor of an AI system has no entitlement to the inventions made by the system. Such ambiguity has a great impact on licensing and commercialization. Without a clear ownership, there are difficulties in:
• transferring patent rights, and,
• to guard against infringement of patents.
• investing in AI-driven innovation.
Therefore, the non-determinate guidelines of ownership can compromise the economic motivations supposed to be promoted by patents.
Disclosure and Enablement Problems
The patent law has a legal provision that requires an invention to be made known in a way that a person with the expert knowledge of the art in question can reproduce it. This requirement is also complicated by AI systems due to their opaque or black-box nature.14
A significant percentage of AI systems, in particular deep-learning models, cannot provide clear explanations of how the outputs have been obtained. In its turn, this deficiency impedes the adherence to the sufficiency of disclosure requirement, which requires the exhaustive description of the invention.
Modern jurisprudential trends emphasize the fact that the lack of disclosure of AI processes can lead to the rejection of patents especially in cases when relevant algorithmic actions or training procedures are not properly outlined.
In addition, the current direction assumes that the applicants to patent release information about the level of AI engagement in the innovative process in order to maintain the principles of transparency and responsibility.
In its turn, AI presents a substantive challenge to the old postulate according to which an invention can be fully explained and reproduced through written descriptions.
Ethical and Policy Concerns
Besides the doctrinal questions, inventions of artificial intelligence lead to the creation of more general ethical and policy challenges that need to be examined systematically.
(a) Concentration of IP Power
The practise of AI is dominated by large technology firms that have strong computational resources and large volumes of data. In case AI generated inventions qualify to be patented, the intellectual property rights will tend to be pooled in a small number of strong bodies hence killing competition, and even halting the flow of innovative ideas.
(b) Impact on Human Inventors
In the event that AI becomes a key innovator, human innovators would be put on the sidelines. This situation causes a concern of critical analysis of the position of the human creativity and a possibility of evaluation whether the patent systems should still be biased towards human input as the primary criterion under which the protection should be provided.
(c) Flooding Patents and Trivial Inventions
Artificial intelligence systems can produce high inventions of incremental or low quality, resulting in patent flooding. This is because patent offices will be flooded with insignificant or self-evident applications, which in effect will reduce the quality of patents in general and create obstacles to the real innovators. At the same time, with the AI-driven patent drafting and search, there arises the issues of the quality of the obtained results, over-disclosure, and the possibility of strategic control of the patent system.
INDIAN LAW AND POLICIES CONTROVERSIES
The growing incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into the network of innovations has revealed the flaws in the structure and doctrine of the Patents Act, 1970. Although the Act offers a holistic structure to the conventional inventions, it does not fully capture the intricacies that are created by the AI-generated work. These difficulties occur in conceptual, statutory, administrative, and policy-based levels, where they have substantial impact on the Indian innovation environment.
Existing Uncertainty in the Indian Patent Law on AI Invention
In Indian patent laws, no particular reference is made to inventions made by artificial intelligence, and it is thus creating a legal grey area. The statutory rubric is based on the thesis that inventions are the results of human intellectual activity as idealised in the doctrine of the true and first inventor. However, modern AI systems are gaining the ability to produce outputs with non-negligible or no human involvement.
With no explicit statutory direction, Indian jurisprudence has implicitly maintained that the only natural persons who could be enfranchised as inventors was to be an inventor, which is consistent with current global judicial trends that have seen case law on the AI apparatus DABUS. As a result, the inventorship of an AI entity in a patent application is blocked.
The above gap creates a gap in dogma. In cases where an AI autonomously comes up with an invention, declaring someone a human equivalent inventor can be a legal and factual fiction. This insecurity spreads into the patent application process and thus it discourages any potential applicant to protect inventions based on AI generation as a result of uncertainty on being rejected or later invalidated.
Interpreting ‘Person’ under Indian Law
Modern intellectual-property law assumes that allocation of patent rights is based on the presence of a legal person, both natural and juridical, which includes corporations and other juridical personages. In their turn, Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems lack the necessary qualifications to qualify as persons, agents or responsible parties, which means that they are not subject to this set of legal rules.
The legal condition that the name of an individual must be granted the rights of the patent implies the need to introduce the concept of an inventor to human participants that are not directly connected to the AI system. Consequently, the developers, operators, or corporate owners can be listed as inventors once the contribution is not sufficient to qualify their inventive conception as required by the patent law.
This method of operation is a threat to the doctrine of patent jurisprudence as it obscures the line between actual creative efforts and facilitation. It thus makes the field vulnerable to inventorship and ownership controversy, especially in the multi-or-collaborative AI systems.
Software-Related Invention Barriers 3(k)
One of the major legal limitations of AI-related patents is a result of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which makes computer programmes per se ineligible to patentability. Since AI systems are essentially based on algorithms, data-processing methods, and software models, this provisional provocation has a direct effect on AI innovation patentability.
Despite the introduction of Computer-Related Invention (CRI) Guidelines15 by the Indian Patent Office that allows patents to be registered in cases where a technical effect or technical contribution can be proven, inconsistency in application of the Section 3(k) still persists. The patent examiners often tend to be conservative and an applicant must be able to show a clear connection between the piece of software and a definable technical result.
Procedural Bars in the Indian Patent office
In addition to substantive law problems, the Indian patent system is facing major administrative and procedural problems. The main problem is that it takes a long time to get a patent. This is because the patent examination process is very slow. In cases people who apply for a patent have to wait a long time from when they submit their application to when they actually get the patent.
Even though people are trying to make the system better by using computers and things, like that there are still some problems that have not gone away and these problems include:
• a backlog of applications,
• lack of coherence in the standards of examinations,
• shortage of specialized experience in patent reviewers in new technologies.
Inventions involving AI require a great level of technical expertise to evaluate. However, too swift AI technologies development has surpassed institutional capacity of the patent office, which could result in:
• random results of examination,
• excessive dependence on strict statutory exclusions (including Section 3( k )),
• a lack of sensitive knowledge of AI-specific innovations.
Furthermore, the procedural issues, including rigorous disclosure practices and mechanisms of opposition can also be a discouraging factor to applicants, especially startups and individual inventors.
The Effect of Indian Innovation, Startups and Research Institutions
The compounding effects of ambiguity in doctrines and procedural inefficiencies have a drastic effect on Indian innovation, startups, and research institutions in India. Patent protection reduces the motivation to invest in research and development in the area of startups that is a key driver of innovation in artificial-intelligence (AI).
Intellectual property is one of the main assets that attract the capital; thus, immature or unclear patent regimes limit the inflows of capital and block commercialization opportunities. There are also challenges associated with patents of AI-based research in universities and other research institutions. This will restrict the transfer of research outputs as the absence of defined guidance on inventorship and patentability will slow down technology transfer and prevent the collaborative work with the industry.
In addition, trade secrets could prove more effective compared to patents in protecting AI innovations in scenarios where disclosure process presents a substantial risk to the Indian innovators. This strategy is a short-term gain, though with a narrow focus however the end result is that it is diminishing the very basis of the patent system, which is propagating knowledge and technological advancement.
The India Competitiveness in IP globally
The status of India in the global competitiveness in terms of intellectual property is a compound path. Although the country has achieved significant advances in advancing its patent infrastructure and increasing domestic registration, it still has a backward step in large-scale patenting of innovations in the domain of innovation, especially in artificial intelligence.
Other countries, including the United States and China, have become more pro-active in dealing with issues involving AI-related patents, such as more explicit guidelines and increased investment in the ecosystem of innovation. Conversely, the comparatively conservative and restrictive nature of India in some of its actions, particularly concerning software patents, could be a case whereby it is not able to compete effectively within the emerging aspects of technology.
Moreover, the issues that India must deal with include : reduced amounts of R&D spending as compared to GDP; low degree of academic-industrial integration; similarly low rates of overseas patent applications. These are the aspects that influence the possibilities of India to establish itself as an AI-innovation and intellectual property-generating country on the global scale.
NEED FOR REFORMING THE INDIAN PATENTS ACT
A. Why Reform is Necessary (Technological Neutrality and Innovation Policy)
High development of artificial intelligence has broken the traditional concept of inventorship and it is high time to review the available patent laws. The Indian Patents Act, 1970 came into existence in a period when invention was just by human ingenuity. Nowadays, AI software can produce new and non-obvious solutions on its own and critical questions are being raised regarding whether such solutions should be patented. Neutrality principle of technology entails that the law must not be biased towards the process through which an invention is developed. Nevertheless, the existing structure implicitly privileges human inventors, which creates the loophole of handling AI-generated inventions.16
Innovation policy wise the reform is necessary so that India will not be left behind in the global technological arena. With AI being part of the healthcare, financial, and manufacturing industries, the restrictive or unclear patenting system may slow down investment and innovation. Through the Act modernization, India is able to establish an enabling environment that will facilitate cutting-edge research as well as make it globally compatible.
B. Risks of Non-Reform (Innovation Flight and Legal Uncertainty)
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) as a force of innovation has presented the intellectual property systems with challenges never witnessed before. The Indian Patents Act, 1970, is designed in a pre-digital age, the focal point of which is the human ingenuity as the foundation of invention. Nevertheless, the legal framework currently seems to be much more insufficient, as AI systems today can create interesting and creative results on their own. Such lack of correspondence between technological progress and legal status has generated uncertainty about the patentability of inventions made by AI. A review of the Indian Patents Act has therefore become an urgent need in order to make the law up to date and responsive to the changes of modern reality. This type of reform is not merely essential in preserving the technological neutrality but is also important in the creation of innovation, investment attraction, and protection of India in the global knowledge economy. Meanwhile, any reform should sensitively consider the interests of the innovators and the interests of the rest of the society on a larger scale so that the patent system remains to fulfill its primary goal of assisting societal development.
C. Constitutional and Statutory Considerations
The reform of the Patents Act should be done in balance with the constitutional principles and statutory purposes. The Indian Constitution provides the right to the freedom of practice of any profession or any trade or business and the practice of innovation and technological development would be covered under this. This right is made possible through a progressive patent regime which encourages creativity and investment.
The Patents Act is supposed to promote inventions and bring them to commercial use in India, as stipulated by law. Any such reform on AI-generated inventions must be in line with these goals without compromising the protection against abuse, including evergreening or patenting of trivial inventions. One should be cautious in wording it to make sure that detecting AI-assisted or AI-generated inventions do not weaken the patent system.
D. Balancing Innovation Incentives with Public Interest
One of the main problems that are placed at the heart of the patent law reform is the necessity to balance between the spurring of innovation and the interests of people. The problem of AI inventions should be patented so that the technological advancement could be made significantly and at the same time investments could be made in AI research. But the safeguarding of patents can be too high or too extensive to allow competition, revenues to influential technologies and emerging monopolies. Therefore, there is a great necessity to make sure that the high standards of patentability requirements are met such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Also, the owners of AI-generated inventions should have their ownership disclosed and transparent. Ultimately, there should be a notion of encouraging innovation and safeguarding the good of the society and equitable access to technological benefits.
E. Role of Judiciary, Legislature, and Policy Bodies
The burden in the remodeling of the Indian Patents Act is distributed in a number of institutional players. The court system will play a major role in the interpretation of the current clauses in addition, resolving emerging controversies concerning AI and intellectual property. Some preliminary light can be shed by the courts with case law and clarify the language of AI inventorship.
Laws are however required to bring a complete shift in wholesale. The law makers ought to recommend its definite definitions and rules to handle AI developed inventions like the matter of inventorship, ownership and patentability. The policymaking institutions and advisory groups can also contribute immensely to this effort by carrying out research in the field of international affairs, engaging with stakeholders and proposing moderate changes.
The judiciary, the legislature and policy institutions should be synchronized to make the patent system evolve in a consistent, visionary and inclusive manner and this can address the challenges to AI-led innovation.
PROPOSED LEGAL REFORMS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The growing infiltration of the artificial intelligence (AI) into the innovative process suggests the proactive reform of the Indian patent regime. Even though the existing legal framework can be regarded as a good framework, it is not explicit on essential issues such as inventorship, ownership, and patentability with regards to AI-generated inventions. These gaps may need a body of particular legal reforms and policy solutions. These reforms must offer some sort of equilibrium between the encouragement of innovation and safeguarding the interest of the masses as well as making sure that India does not suffer as far as the development of intellectual property laws is concerned in comparison with the rest of the world. This may be done in a programmed, dynamic resolution that entails the examination of the legislation and prerogative interventions to enable India to adequately regulate and provoke AI-inspired innovation.
A. Redefining “Inventor”
The definition of the term inventor is one of the key modifications that should be introduced into the Indian Patents Act. Natural persons are traditionally the only type of inventor that the law recognizes and this is not the case of the AI systems despite their increased contribution to the invention. In this connection, there is a need to officially accept the concept of AI-assisted inventorship. That would give the opportunity to issue patents when AI provides significant contribution to the creative process, yet the human control does not go unmentioned. In addition, an inventorship model that is a combination of a human and AI can be suggested. The developer/ trainer/ or deployer of the AI system may be the inventor in this paradigm provided he/she possesses sufficient control or intellectual effort. This is a way of keeping the human element of the patent law but it is non-deterministic of the technological development. It is also important to note that such reforms must not make AI a person, but fix the issues of assigning inventorship in such a manner that it will be possible to address the real-life scenario.
B. Ownership Framework
Tightly associated with inventorship is the ownership issue. Regarding the invention in AI-generated inventions, the issue of who holds the rights to the patents may be complicated. Clarity in the legal framework on ownership should be achieved by making rules on default. Indicatively, the rights may be vested in either the developer of the AI system, the user deploying it or the recipient owning the AI infrastructure, depending on the situation. Legal presumptions may be invoked to provide flexibility to go hand in hand with contractual freedom. Both the rights may be assumed by the law of the owner or the operator of the AI system, unless it is signed otherwise in the contract. This involves the parties distributing their rights by agreement and offering a clear rule of default in the event of no such agreement. In this manner, the legislation will be able to minimize conflicts and give some certainty to participants of the AI-driven innovation.
C. Patentability Guidelines for AI
Since the invention of AI is different, specific patentability rules are necessary. Separate examination guidelines could be developed by the Indian Patent Office that concern inventions involving AI. These instructions are supposed to explain how the conventional standards, which include novelty, innovative step, and industrial applicability, are applied in the case of AI.
The introduction of a higher threshold in inventive step in the situation related to AI-generated output might be one of the changes that might be essential. Because AI systems are capable of producing several solutions in a very short amount of time, it is important to make sure that only truly non-evident and meaningful innovations are patented. This would avert the spreading of bad patents and ensure that the system is not compromised.
In addition, there should be increased disclosure requirements. The applicants might be asked to provide any pertinent information to the AI system, such as training data, algorithms, and the level of human involvement. The disclosure of such transparency is critical in allowing the corresponding scrutiny and in making sure that only valid inventions receive patents. Meanwhile, there should be some measures to defend trade secrets and confidential information.
D. Regulatory Sandbox Approach
Regulatory sandbox approach can prove to be very useful since the AI technology is changing over time. A sandbox model would enable policymakers to pilot new regulations and principles of AI inventions in a more limited context before applying it to a broader level. This experimental method will allow revealing possible difficulties and improving regulatory processes. Pilot policies may be presented in order to evaluate the practical functioning of various models of inventorship, ownership, and patentability. These efforts can be further improved by working together with international bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).17 India can build a solid and integrated strategy in AI patent regulation by interacting with the best practices available internationally and having a global discussion around the topic.
E. Ethical Safeguards
The need to encourage innovation is a major goal but it is also vital to have ethical considerations in the patent system. A significant issue is that AI-generated inventions might become monopolies owned by one patentee since major corporations could acquire a disproportionate control over AI technologies. To deal with this, the legal framework should be incorporated with competition friendly measures. Compulsory licensing mechanisms are capable of being an important part of ensuring that the important technologies are available to the masses. Moreover, by encouraging open innovation principles, such as by sharing some of AI-produced outputs or making them available under reasonable terms, collaboration and the greater benefit to the society could be encouraged. The level of protection of the AI-created inventions should also be guided by ethical considerations. The legislation should make sure that the patent regime does not suffocation of follow-on innovation and entry barriers of the smaller players. Through such safeguards, India will be able to create a patent system which not only based on innovation but also equitable and socially responsible.
Finally, the policy recommendations and suggested legal changes will add to the modernization of the Indian Patents Act to address the challenge of AI-generated inventions. India can develop a balanced and future-proof patent system through redefining inventorship, clarifying ownership, development of customized patentability principles, a regulatory sandbox and the integration of an ethical protection. This kind of structure will not just facilitate the development of technology but will also make innovation benefit the society at large.
FUTURE OUTLOOK: AI AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN INDIA
With the further development of artificial intelligence (AI), its convergence with intellectual property (IP) law will become one of the factors that determine the impact of innovations on the creation of an innovation ecosystem in India. There is a positive and a negative perspective to the future of AI-driven inventions, necessitating a dynamic and progressive legal system. India, with its expanding technological base and good policy emphasis on digital transformation, is at a very crucial crossroad where harmonization of IP laws and AI development can play a major role in helping the country to be more competitive in the world. This will require a proactive measure to make sure that the patent system does not become irrelevant, exclusive, and unable to meet some of the emerging complexities of intelligent machines age.
A. Role of AI in India’s Knowledge Economy
India is going to use Artificial Intelligence as one of the things that will help the country’s knowledge economy. This will help India do research come up with new ideas and make its digital infrastructure better. The country is moving fast to an economy that is based on data. India has plans like Digital India.18 It is also doing more research, on Artificial Intelligence. AI technologies allow solving problems quicker, automating complicated jobs, and creating new solutions, increasing productivity, and efficiency. In this regard, protection of intellectual property gains significance in the incentive on innovation and returns on investment. The presence of a clear IP system that can support AI-produced inventions will promote the investments by startups, research centers, and companies in new technologies. This can make India a strong player in ideas and technology worldwide.
B. Potential Impact over Pharmaceutical, Biotech, Software, and Manufacturing Sectors
The introduction of AI will be the cause of the radiant transformation in the key spheres of the Indian economy. The use of AI in biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries can accelerate the drug development process, simplify the clinical trial process, and enable personalized medicine. The innovations produced by AI in these spheres must be patented because it can significantly boost the level of research and development. In the software sector AI-based applications are already revolutionizing the business in terms of cybersecurity, data mining, and automation. These innovations will have to be singled out and ensured as the most crucial one in making sure that the market remains competitive in the global markets. Similarly, in the manufacturing industry, AI can help in intelligent manufacturing, predictive services and supply chain management which encourages Industry 4.0. However, the larger presence of AI in those sectors also brings about complex problems of IP, particularly regarding property rights, inventorship, and protection. These challenges will be necessary to achieve the possibility of AI-driven innovation.
C. Need for Adaptive IP Law in the Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Fourth Industrial Revolution that integrates AI and robotics, big data and other new technologies require a flexible and adaptive IP regime. Human-centric innovations are the foundations of traditional patent laws and might not be fit to understand the AI-generated inventions. An adaptive IP, in its turn, must be proficient to evolve with technological evolutions and introduce some new definitions, standards, and procedures when necessary. This involves the identification of AI-assisted innovation, maintaining transparency in patent applications and the upholding of stringent requirements of patentability. This flexibility will help the legal system to be responsive to any future developments that might arise and still be in a position to undergo the needed reforms when it is necessary.
D. International Harmonization of AI Patent Laws
As AI innovation is global, harmonization of patent laws internationally will gain more significance. The presence of different strategies in various jurisdictions may pose a challenge to an innovator who would like to be protected in more than one country. Thus, it is important to modernize the patent system in India similar to the global standards and best practices. This can be assisted by engaging with international community and also by taking part in global discussions on AI and IP as this will help India develop and adjust to the new standards. Harmonization is not about uniformity, but a synchronized strategy to enable cross border innovation without any prejudice on national priorities.
To sum up, AI and intellectual property in India lies in the capacity of the nation to transform its legal system to reflect the new technological reality. Through innovation, solving industry-specific issues, flexibility, and alignment with global trends, India can have a powerful and progressive IP regime which will be able to help achieve sustainable growth in the era of AI.
CONCLUSION
The advent of the artificial intelligence as a major source of the inventive process has essentially undermined the conventional underpinnings of the patent law. Based on the belief of human ingenuity and intellectual input, the current jurisprudence under the Patents Act, 1970, is facing more and more issues of possibilities that the innovation can be developed by autonomous and semi-autonomous AI systems. This transformation is unveiling fundamental loopholes in doctrines of inventorship, ownership and patentability, hence, providing legal ambiguity and operational challenges to stakeholders.
As the analysis shows, India, similar to other jurisdictions in the world, still sticks to the anthropocentric approach to inventorship. The unwillingness to accept AI as an inventor as provided by existing statutory interpretations is reinforced by judicial tendencies around the globe, especially in the DABUS case. Nevertheless, the increased involvement of AI in the creation of new and commercially viable outputs allow one to understand that the preservation of a strict focus on traditional principles can impede technological advancement and innovation motivation.
Lack of clear legal provisions on AI-generated invention in India leads to confusion particularly in the rightful ownership and adherence to legal requirements of disclosure. Also, there is a legal obstacle of Section 3(k) and the inefficiencies in the patent system, which make the protection of AI-based innovations even more complex. Such issues not only have an influence on the clarity of the law, but also have a more expansive toll on startups, research institutions, and the status of India in the global innovation landscape.
Here, the Indian patent regime should not only be reformed but it needs reforming. The existing gaps can be addressed with the help of a balanced approach that recognizes inventorship with AI assistance, which explains ownership by introducing flexible default provisions, and provides customized patentability standards. Meanwhile, precautionary measures need to be added so as to avoid monopolization, fair competition, and to retain the interest of the people. The legislature, judiciary and policy institutions will play a critical role in developing a progressive and responsive legal system.
In conclusion, AI and intellectual property in India have a bright future in the near-term with a delicate balance between promoting innovation and maintaining the essence of the patent law. India can become a developed and competitive participant in the global knowledge economy by being both a reformist and a doctrinally sound nation.
*****
Footnotes
1. Ryan Abbott, ‘I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law’ (2016) 57 Boston College Law Review 1079
2. Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2018)
3. World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence (WIPO 2019)
4. Alexandra George and Toby Walsh, ‘Can AI be an Inventor?’ (2019) 41 European Intellectual Property Review 297
5. European Patent Office, ‘EPO refuses two patent applications naming a machine as inventor’ (2020) https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/epo-refuses-two-patent-applications-naming-machine-inventor accessed 16 April 2026
6. Patents Act 1970
7. Patents Act 1970, ss 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja)
8. Patents Act 1970, s 3(k)
9. Thaler v Vidal 43 F 4th 1207 (Fed Cir 2022)
10. Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49
11. Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCA 879
12. Commissioner of Patents v Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62
13. Alexandra George and Toby Walsh (n 4)
14. Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law (CUP 2020)
15. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (2017)
16. Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)
17. World Intellectual Property Organization (n 3)
18. NITI Aayog, National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (2018)