Artificial intelligence {AI}:
AI is the word everyone is hearing around the world today. AI{ARTIFICAL INTELLIGIENCE} is the creation of humans and, in simple terms is the brain of a computer: a techy Brain” because now the computer makes its decision-making in creative processes separate from the owner, the AI is based on work for hire means an agreement between the AI and the owner in the bases of work for hire for the fulfilments of the work, in the USA law the agreement may be explicit but under European law the agreement is the employment contracts outline implicit but Indian context, but ownership may also be implied based on the nature of the work.
Significance of Patents in the Technological Arena:
A patent is an invention for which a state grants exclusive rights to the individual or group which holds such a right or the representative of the group for a certain duration of time, in return for some privy information about the invention. The patent period nevertheless provides the inventor that has patented his or her invention the sole authority to use or benefit from it over a specified duration, solely to encourage novelties to be made by the society. The concept of patents has been in English history since the 16th Century This practice is common among All things in society Patentable items are observed in every field of technology including drugs or even computer packages and excluding it means a firm has no competitive edge in a technologically focused market. To put it simply, patents encourage the invention of various technologies solely for monetary gain; however, these inventions can also do great good to mankind. However, in granting patent owners the right to exclude the market from their patented invention, this monopoly creates a threat to competition and further innovation which hampers development in several fields of frugal innovation.
The Development of Patent Law In India:
The patent law in India is encapsulated in the Patent Act of 1970 and the following amendments. The Act provides that attention should be given to the protection of inventions, that are new, non-obvious, and meet the usefulness requirement. In the past, a patent was issued to an individual professional who was willing to devote intellectual effort to make something new. But as the use of AI in the process of invention increases, the related question arises – can any AI system be credited as an inventor?
Key provisions of the Patents Act:
Section 2(1)(j): “Invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable
of industrial application;
Section 6(1): Subject to the provisions contained in section 134, an application for a patent for an invention may be made by any of the following persons —
(a) by any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention;
(b) by any person being the assignee of the person claiming to be the true and first
inventor in respect of the right to make such an application;
(c) by the legal representative of any deceased person who immediately before his
death was entitled to make such an application.
Section 2(1)(Ja): inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as
compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that
makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;
APPLICATION Of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN PATENT CREATION:
It is possible to employ an intelligent machine to sift through the available range of patent art and figure out the patentability of a particular invention. Searching the patent database makes use of the keywords method whereby patents about the invention are sought. Most of these simple keyword searches for instance cannot work. Two patents that deal with a similar issue may use dissimilar terms. Wise automated structures including natural language processing and other AI systems and devices can apply a closer look both at the content and context of patents concerning how certain patents relate to other patents on the same subject. Further, other systems like data mining tools for example, or genetic algorithms could analyze various sections of the patent database or even the whole one for certain trends or interdependencies amongst available patent patterns. Indeed, no sooner than the establishment of the Patent Office, tools for the examination would already start to be utilized in the process of patenting out technology.
Protection of Inventions Having AI as the Inventor
When it comes to implementation in practice, the non-executive aspects of AI applications continue to emerge at a fast pace. This appreciation draws determination in support of authors in the provision of solutions that involve new AI technologies. Particularly, the AI community will ask for the reformation of more permissive IP laws. Since it is common knowledge that patents have an economic impact by stimulating creativity, one can say that there should be some degree of motivation for the use of AI technology by inventors and advocates for patenting the innovation. Some systems would cover all possible kinds of invention or employment of AI as a facilitatory means of the inventive process. Incentive systems may include reducing the costs associated with applying for patents for AI-based inventions or trimming down the years of patent periods due to technologies’ nature, fields of use, and emanation possibilities of innovations. Any reforms to the system will have to be assessed regarding their costs and benefits to society and the economy and will be carried out over the long term utilizing a historical case study of the system’s effects.
The DABUS case:
The DABUS case involves two patent applications naming an AI machine, DABUS, as the sole inventor. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) rejected the applications, as DABUS is not considered a “person” under section 13(2) of the Patents Act 1977. Dr. Thaler, who owns DABUS, appealed the decision, but both the UK High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Finally, on December 20, the UK Supreme Court confirmed the decision to treat the applications as withdrawn.
The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the interpretation of the Patents Act 1977, specifically:
Definition of Inventor: The court ruled that an inventor must be a natural person, and AI (DABUS) cannot be an inventor. Ownership of the Invention: Dr. Thaler’s argument that, as the owner of DABUS, he should have ownership of any invention created by it was rejected. A patent requires a human inventor, which DABUS is not. Doctrine of Accession: The court ruled that inventions are not tangible property, so the doctrine of accession cannot apply to inventions created by AI. The court upheld that Dr. Thaler’s failure to identify a human inventor led to the applications being considered withdrawn. The ruling did not address whether AI-generated inventions should be patentable in the future, leaving open the possibility for future legal developments on AI-created inventions. The judgment indicates that inventions made by humans using AI tools can still be patented under UK law.
Is it possible for an AI to Be an Inventor in India?
In the present circumstances of the Indian patent law, the AI cannot be described as an inventor since there is a provision regarding the criteria that only a “natural person” is entitled to apply for a patent. This is in line with a more generalized development in other parts of the world in which for the most part, AI is not invested with the status of being capable of enjoying proprietary rights including patent rights. Nevertheless, such a situation presents a peculiarity of law. If we are to accept that AI systems can make patentable inventions, must it mean that such inventions will not be awarded any patents at all? If this is so, it may dampen the funding for AI-related inventions, which may set back the growth of India in AI industries. Another would be that such patents would be awarded to the human operator of the AI or the organization that owns the AI system. Still, this begs the issue of ethical and practical concerns of credit and ownership.
Options for India’s Legal Framework:
Inventorship restriction to individual human beings: Retain the status quo whereby all inventors shall be either natural persons or legal entities.AI as a Co-Inventor: Amend the law by making it possible to register the AI as one of the inventors together with the human inventors. Companies to own the AI: As companies do now, the only solution to mitigate this perceived risk is to award patents to the legal entities or companies owning the AI systems.
Understanding the Challenges of AI-Generated Inventions in Patent Law:
Artificial intelligence-created innovations present huge difficulties to conventional patent frameworks, especially regarding inventorship and possession. In regular licenses for advancements like substance or mechanical developments, the creator should be a human who has contributed fundamentally to the origination, plan, and decrease of the creation to rehearse. US patent regulation characterizes an innovator as somebody who imagined the creation, and it can’t be credited to somebody who only contributed a thought. This presents an issue for simulated intelligence-produced innovations, where PCs — not people — are liable for making groundbreaking thoughts and cycles.
In the UK, inventorship is characterized as the “genuine deviser” of development, raising the likelihood that man-made intelligence frameworks could be viewed as creators. This was featured in the DABUS case, where Dr. Stephen Thaler recorded his simulated intelligence framework, DABUS, as the designer in patent applications in the US and Europe. Notwithstanding, the two purviews dismissed the applications, requiring a human innovator. Moreover, the responsibility for creating innovations becomes intricate. Normally, creation freedoms have a place with the business of the designer, however, if man-made intelligence is the creator, questions emerge about who holds the privileges to the development. These annoying issues might prompt disagreements regarding man-made intelligence inventorship and patent possession as man-made intelligence turns out to be more noticeable in advancement.
Potential Changes to Indian Patent Regulation
As man-made intelligence keeps on assuming a huge part in development, Indian patent regulation might expect changes to address the difficulties presented by computer-based intelligence-created innovations. One potential change is the legitimate acknowledgment of computer-based intelligence-produced innovations, which could include presenting arrangements that either quality inventorship to the computer-based intelligence framework itself or recognize the human administrators or proprietors of the simulated intelligence as designers. Moreover, the improvement of computer-based intelligence explicit patent rules by the Indian Patent Office could help in assessing man-made intelligence-created developments, including measures for evaluating the imaginative step and deciding qualification for patent security.
Also, laying out a moral and administrative structure could guarantee that man-made intelligence-created innovations are grown mindfully, shielding common freedoms and public interest. At long last, advancing cooperative development models where simulated intelligence frameworks and human creators work pair could prompt joint responsibility for, recognizing the commitments of both human innovativeness and simulated intelligence capacities. These changes could assist India with adjusting its patent framework to the developing scene of advancement driven by man-made consciousness.
FUTURE OUTLOOK AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
While considering the fate of simulated intelligence and its protecting potential, the requirement for adaptability inside patent regulations and organizations is essential. It is inescapable that the following ten years will carry fast change to artificial intelligence, as programming and calculations will keep on taking on a more noticeable job in development and disclosure. AI, as referenced previously, is as of now having a critical effect on the idea of advancement itself. Advancements in this field, like those determined by profound learning, will reasonably shape the innovation representing things to come.
These advancements will be profoundly flighty, even to their makers, and as the capabilities of artificial intelligence outperform human capacities in a rising number of fields, there will be developing strain to robotize the innovative cycle. A guide to consider is the potential for full computer-based intelligence origin of patentable creations. For the present, this is precluded in numerous nations, as current regulations require a creator to be a ‘characteristic individual’. Be that as it may, it is easy to envision that computer-based intelligence creation may one day be financially critical, and there will be a need to reconsider the majority of designers. One more significant issue to be returned to in what’s in store is that of the patentable topic. This will be particularly important for public strategy contemplations encompassing the advancement of development and general societal interest.
As man-made intelligence turns into an inexorably predominant device for recreating human mental cycles, there will be a development pattern in the advancement of simulated intelligence techniques to supplant human exercises in different fields. The overall agreement among researchers is that flow patent regulations are unfit to deal with creations delivered by simply computational cycles, and studies have shown that the patentability of programming and business techniques fluctuates enormously between wards. At the global level, there is a continuous discussion regarding the Excursion arrangement, which commands the least principles of patent security for WTO part states. Despite this, the adaptability of the patentable topic is very huge, and the exact limits of what might be not entirely set in stone through public regulations and lawful points of reference.
Author: Denik Sai, Pursuing BA LLB from VIT AP University
REFERENCES:
1. WK Robinson – Nev. LJ, 2020 – HeinOnline. Artificial intelligence and access to the patent system. unlv.edu
2. K. Vaish, P. Rawat, S. Kathuria, R. Singh, “Intelligence and Artificial”, 2023 – ieeexplore.ieee.org.Intelligence
3. S Yanisky-Ravid, R Jin – Social Science Research Network, 2020 – ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Summoning a new artificial intelligence patent model: in the age of pandemic. nih.gov
4. SS Tu – Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ, 2020 – HeinOnline. Patenting Fast and Slow: Examiner and Applicant Use of Prior Art. wvu.edu
5. J Lee, S Park, J Lee – IEEE Access, 2022 – ieeexplore.ieee.org. A fast and scalable algorithm for prior art search. ieee.org
6. A Engel – GRUR International, 2020 – academic.oup.com. Can a patent be granted for an AI-generated invention?
7. ME Leusin, J Günther, B Jindra, MG Moehrle – World Patent Information, 2020 – Elsevier. Patenting patterns in Artificial Intelligence: Identifying national and international breeding grounds. sciencedirect.com
8. JJ Bryson, H Malikova – Global Perspectives, 2021 – online.ucpress.edu. Is there an AI cold war? delorscentre. eu
9. J Drexl, R Hilty, L Desaunettes-Barbero… – Max Planck Institute …, 2021 – papers.ssrn.com. Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law- Position statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and competition of 9 April 2021 on the current debate. mpg.de
