Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) Machine be Granted Inventorship in India?


Affiliations
1 Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, Khan Market — 110 003, New Delhi, India., India
2 University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka, Delhi — 110 078, India., India
 

Artificial intelligence (AI) is prolific emerging algorithmic general purpose technology that helps inventors in the innovation process or is a component of an invention. AI-assisted inventions and other computer-related inventions (CRIs) generally have few significant differences. A simple instrument for creativity, machines are now a significant contribution to creation because to AI advancements. Medical researchers are using AI machines to find new drugs. These automated systems, also known as “innovative AI”, have been helping to develop new inventions with little to no human involvement. 1

Since AI's contribution and autonomous invention process is exponentially growing, there have been instances where a patent applicant has opted to name an AI programme as the inventor in a patent application. The patent offices of the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and New Zealand recently rejected a patent application seeking inventorship for an AI computer. Australia and South Africa, on the other hand, have recognised AI as an inventor. In light of the various approaches used around the world, this article examines the key question that emerges in patent granting: can an AI system that is not a natural person be recognised as an inventor and granted a patent in India, including inventorship and ownership?


Keywords

Innovative AI, Computer-Related Inventions, Patents,Utilitarian Theory, Incentive Theory, TRIPS Agreement.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Tyagi M, Patentability of Artificial Intelligence Creations: Issues and Challenges, http://www.dehradunlawreview.com/ wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/8_Patentability_of_Artificial_Int elligence_Creations-79-87.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • Ortega A, Patenting Artificial Intelligence inventions, University of California, Berkley (LL.M., class of 2020), Third Annual International Writing Competition (2019-2020), Center for Legal & Court Technology, William & Mary Law School, Williamsburg, Virginia, US; https://legaltechcenter.net/files/sites/159/2020/05/Patentin g-AI-inventions.pdf.

  • The Patent Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970), Section 2(1)(j).

  • The Patent Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970), Section 2(1)(ja).

  • The Patent Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970), Section 2(1)(l).

  • Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries, [AIR 1982 SC 144].

  • Salmond L J in Rado v John Tye & Son Ltd., 4(1967)RPC. 297.

  • TRIPS Agreement of WTO, 1994, Article 27(1).

  • The Patent Act, 1970 (Act No. 39 of 1970), Section 3 (k).

  • 35 USC§100(f).

  • 447 U.S. (1980)

  • New Idea Farm Equip, Corp v Sperry Corp, 916f.2d 1561,1566 (1990)

  • PLG Research [1994] FSR 116, 137

  • Robert L Harmon, Harmon on Patents,Black-Letter Law and Commentary, BNA Books, 2007, 32.

  • Vertisky L, Thinking Machines and Patent Law, in Barfield et. al.(eds.), 496, Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar, 2018) 496

  • Bosher H et. al., WIPO Impact of Artificial Intelligence on IP Policy Response from Brunel University London, Law School & Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Brunel University London, Law School& Centrefor Artificial Intelligence, 2019, https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/aboutip/en/ artificial_intelligence/call_for_comments/pdf/org_brunel.pdf.

  • 36 F.2d 292, 295 (1929).

  • 35 U.S.C. 103.

  • Helen L I, Can a Computer be an Inventor, BI LSKI BLOG, (23 July 2019), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/can-a-computer-be-an-inventor-11706/ (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • Hughes J, The philosophy of intellectual property, Georgetown Law Journal, 77 (1988) 330.

  • Tur-Sinai O, Beyond incentives: Expanding the theoretical framework for Patent Law analysis, 2010, Arkon Law Review, 2010, 27, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm? abstract_id=1697254 (accessed on 11 January 2018).

  • Ramalho A, Patentability of AI-generated inventions: Is a reform of the patent system needed?, SSRN Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3168703. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract= 3168703 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168703(accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8.

  • Nari L, Protection for Artificial Intelligence in Personalised Medicine – The Patent/Trade Secret Trade Off, (SSRN, 2019) 325 (providing a counterargument and exception to the generally held view that utilitarianism is dominant in U.S. Patent Law Scholarship).

  • Precision Instrument Mfg. Co.v Auto Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945).

  • Posner R A, Frontiers of Legal Theory, Harvard University Press, (2004).

  • Dey S, Are Patents Discouraging Innovation? (National University of Singapore), https://bit.ly/3fjfKcm; Girard B, Does ‘Strategic Patenting’ Threaten Innovation? And What Could Happen If It Did? (University of Queens at Montreal), https://bit.ly/2UCzujf (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • Ebrahim T Y, Artificial Intelligence inventions & patent disclosure, Iowa Legal Studies Research, Paper No. 2021-48, (125) (1), Penn State Law Review, (2020); ssrn.com/ abstract=3722720; https://ssrn.com/abstract=3722720 (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • Derclaye E, Patent Law’s role in the protection of the environment – re-assessing patent law and its justifications in the 21st century, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 40 (3) (2009) 253-255,; Fisher M, Classical economics and philosophy of the patent system, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 1 (2005) 12-13.

  • Dhanol J, Whether Artificial Intelligence is a Person or Machine: An analysis under Patent Law, International Journal of Law and Social Sciences (IJLS),1 (2021) 7, https://www.alliance.edu.in/ijls/ijls-2021/assets/documents/ Whether-AI-is-a-person-or-machine.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • PLG Research [1994] FSR 116, 137.

  • Burroughs Wellcome v Barr Labs., Inc, 40f.3d 1223, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

  • IDA vUniversity of Southampton [2006] EWCA Civ 145, [39].

  • Morganv Hirsch, 728f.2d. 1449, 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

  • N Shemtov, A Study on Inventorship in Inventions Involving AI Activity (EPO, 2019) 19.

  • Lemley M A, Ex ante versusex post justifications for intellectual property, University of Chicago Law Review, 71 (2004) 129-130.

  • P Blok, The inventor’s new tool: artificial Intelligence – How does it fit the European patent system? European Intellectual Property Review, 70:39 (2017) 2; Ramalho A, Patentability of AI-generated inventions: Is a reform of the patent system needed?, SSRN Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3168703. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3168703 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168703 (accessed on 18 April 2022).

  • The European Patent Convention, Article 60.

  • The European Patent Convention, Article 56.

  • EPO Guidelines, Part G – Chapter VII -1.

  • Visser D, The annotated European Patent Convention [2000], 25 th ed., Kluwer Law International,2017.

  • EPO Guidelines, Part G – Chapter VII-3.

  • Case Blount (T699/91), Boards of Appeal of the EPO.

  • Case Pyrazolopyrimidinones for the treatment of impotence/ Pfizer Limited et. al. (T1212/01), Boards of Appeal of the EPO.

  • Sherkow J, Negativing invention, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2011, 1109-1110.

  • The US Patent Act, Section 103.

  • Environmental Designs, Ltd.vUnion Oil, Co., 713f.2d 693 (1983).

  • Graham vJohn Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

  • Graham vJohn Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), 17-18.

  • Case law cited in D.S. CHISUM, op. cit., Sec. 5.04 A[2].

  • 566 U.S. 66 (2012), Docket no. 10-1150.

  • Drexl J, Hilty R, Kim D & Slowinski, Peter R, Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (7 September 2021), Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-20, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/SSRN-id3919588.pdf.

  • Hattenbach B & Glucoft J, Patents in an era of infinite monkeys and artificial intelligence, Stanford Technology Law Review, 19 (2015) 44.

  • DABUS’ stands for ‘Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’. ‘DABUS Described, https://imagination-engines.com/dabus.html (accessed on 12 March 2022).

  • Application No. 2021/03242, 54 (7), 255, (Patents, Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright Office, Patent Journal Including Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright in Cinematograph Films), https://iponline.cipc.co.za/ Publications/PublishedJournals/E_Journal_July%202021%20 Part%202.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2022).

  • The Artificial Inventor project, https://artificialinventor.com/ about-the-team/, (accessed on 6 September 2021).

  • FCA decision, para 58.

  • Thaler v Comm’r. of Patents, [2021] FCA 879 (30 July 2021) 17-18 (Austl.), https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgment s/fca/single/2021/2021fca0879 (accessed on 17 March 2022).

  • Thaler vCommissioner of PatentsFCA 879 (30 Jul 2021); Drexl J, Hilty R, Kim D & Slowinski, Peter R, Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (7 September 2021), Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-20, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/SSRN-id3919588.pdf.

  • FCA decision, para 131.

  • FCA decision, para 126.

  • FCA decision, para 1129.

  • FCA decision, para18, Drexl J, Hilty R, Kim D & Slowinski, Peter R, Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (7 September 2021), Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-20, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/SSRN-id3919588.pdf.

  • FCA discussion, para 6.

  • Drexl J, Hilty R, Kim D & Slowinski, Peter R, Artificial Intelligence Systems as Inventors? A Position Statement of 7 September 2021 in View of the Evolving Case-Law Worldwide (7 September 2021), Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 21-20, file:///C:/Users/Dell/Downloads/SSRN-id3919588.pdf.; World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Technology Trends 2019, ArtifIntell, 2019,111.

  • The Income Tax Act 1956, Section 6(1)(b).

  • The Income Tax Act 1956, Section 2(31).

  • The Income Tax Act 1956, Section 28(1)(a).

  • Fraser E, Computers as Inventors – Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law’, SCRIPTed,13 (3) (2016) 325.


Abstract Views: 153

PDF Views: 111




  • Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) Machine be Granted Inventorship in India?

Abstract Views: 153  |  PDF Views: 111

Authors

G R Raghavender
Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, Khan Market — 110 003, New Delhi, India., India
Gurujit Singh
University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Dwarka, Delhi — 110 078, India., India

Abstract


Artificial intelligence (AI) is prolific emerging algorithmic general purpose technology that helps inventors in the innovation process or is a component of an invention. AI-assisted inventions and other computer-related inventions (CRIs) generally have few significant differences. A simple instrument for creativity, machines are now a significant contribution to creation because to AI advancements. Medical researchers are using AI machines to find new drugs. These automated systems, also known as “innovative AI”, have been helping to develop new inventions with little to no human involvement. 1

Since AI's contribution and autonomous invention process is exponentially growing, there have been instances where a patent applicant has opted to name an AI programme as the inventor in a patent application. The patent offices of the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and New Zealand recently rejected a patent application seeking inventorship for an AI computer. Australia and South Africa, on the other hand, have recognised AI as an inventor. In light of the various approaches used around the world, this article examines the key question that emerges in patent granting: can an AI system that is not a natural person be recognised as an inventor and granted a patent in India, including inventorship and ownership?


Keywords


Innovative AI, Computer-Related Inventions, Patents,Utilitarian Theory, Incentive Theory, TRIPS Agreement.

References