Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Challenge of Recognizing Artificial Intelligence as Legal Inventor: Implications and Analysis of Patent Laws

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Power Engineering and Intelligent Systems (PEIS 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 1097))

  • 231 Accesses

Abstract

Innovations in AI have altered various industries, changed how we think of plausible solutions for any problem, and allowed us to create products, thoughts, and concepts that were previously unimaginable. As a result, more patent applications for inventions created by AI have been filed, raising several questions about the legal standing of AI as an inventor. In addition to offering a critical study of the worldwide legal system regulating the patenting of AI-generated work, this non-empirical research article explores the consequences and difficulties of acknowledging AI as an inventor. By reviewing the existing legal framework, examining inventorship criteria, analyzing challenges tied to legal inventorship for AI-generated inventions, reviewing relevant case law, and proposing potential solutions, this study sheds light on the complex legal, ethical, and social considerations involved. Furthermore, it suggests future research directions, including the exploration of dedicated patent laws and regulations for AI-generated inventions, as well as investigations into the ethical and social implications and potential consequences of acknowledging AI as a legal inventor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Artificial Intelligence Market Report: Size, Growth & Analysis. (n.d.). Markets and markets. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-market-74851580.html

  2. Andresen SL (2002) John McCarthy: father of AI. IEEE Intell Syst 17(5), Article 5

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kenneth-Southworth E, Li Y (2023) AI inventors: deference for legal personality without respect for innovation? J Intellect Prop Law Pract 18(1), Article 1

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kokane S (2021) The intellectual property rights of artificial intelligence-based inventions. J Sci Res 65(2)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thaldar D, Naidoo M (2021) AI inventorship: the right decision? S Afr J Sci 117(11–12):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  6. Putin: Leader in artificial intelligence will rule world. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/04/putin-leader-in-artificial-intelligence-will-rule-world.html

  7. Chesterman S (2020) Artificial intelligence and the limits of legal personality. Int Comp Law Q 69(4), Article 4

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kretschmer M, Meletti B, Porangaba LH (2022) Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: copyright and patents–a response by the CREATe Centre to the UK Intellectual Property Office’s open consultation. J Intellect Prop Law Pract

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lada M (2022) Artificial intelligence, inventorship and the myth of the inventing machine: can a process be an inventor? Inf Commun Technol Law 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  10. George A, Walsh T (2022) Can AI invent? Nat Mach Intell 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  11. Singh N, Bandyopadhyay TK, Sahoo N, Tiwari K (2021) Intellectual property issues in artificial intelligence: specific reference to the service sector. Int J Technol Learn Innov Dev 13(1), Article 1

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yanisky-Ravid S, Jin R (2021) Summoning a new artificial intelligence patent model: In the age of crisis. Mich. St. L. Rev 811

    Google Scholar 

  13. Narayanan RR, Durga N, Nagalakshmi S (2022) Impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on drug discovery and product development. Indian J Pharm Educ Res 56:S387–S397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dharmapuri Selvakumar M (2022). A Robot in IP-the issues and need for legislation. J Intellect Prop Rights (JIPR) 25(6), Article 6

    Google Scholar 

  15. Craig CJ (2022) The relational robot: a normative lens for AI legal neutrality—commentary on Ryan Abbott, the reasonable robot. Jerus Rev Leg Stud 25(1), Article 1

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bennett B, Daly A (2020) Recognising rights for robots: can we? Will we? Should we? Law Innov Technol 12(1), Article 1

    Google Scholar 

  17. Adde L, Smith J (2021) Patent pending: the law on AI inventorship. J Intellect Prop Law Pract

    Google Scholar 

  18. Deshpande R, Kamath K (2020) Patentability of inventions created by AI—the DABUS claims from an Indian perspective. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 15(11):879–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heon L (2022) Artificially obvious but genuinely new: how artificial intelligence alters the patent obviousness analysis. Seton Hall Law Rev 53(1):8

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ebrahim TY (2020) Artificial intelligence inventions & patent disclosure. Penn St. L Rev 125:147

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lim PH, Li P (2022) Artificial intelligence and inventorship: patently much ado in the computer program. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 17(4):376–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanherpe J (2021) IP and AI-A tale of two acronyms. Artif Intell Law; 2021/05/05–2021/05/05

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gibson S, Newman J (2020) What happens when AI invents: is the invention patentable? AI Mag 41(4), Article 4

    Google Scholar 

  24. Oriakhogba DO (2021) What If DABUS came to Africa? Visiting AI inventorship and ownership of patent from the Nigerian perspective. Bus Law Rev 42(2), Article 2

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kanna R, Singh P (2021) Thaler v commissioner of patents [2021] FCA 879: DABUS-an ‘Inventor’? Indian J Artificial Intel L 2:7

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liberman A (2022) One small step for ‘artificial intelligence’ and a giant leap for the Australian patent system? The Federal Court decision in Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 17(2), Article 2

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jenkins G (2021) Thaler strikes again, down under: artificial intelligence systems as inventors not ruled out (yet). J Intellect Prop Law Pract

    Google Scholar 

  28. Who is Mipsology? (n.d.). Mipsology. Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://mipsology.com/who-is-mipsology/

  29. Warner-Lambert Company LLC (Appellant) v Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan and another (Respondents). Retrieved February 18, 2023, from https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0197-judgment.pdf

  30. del Mar Marono Gargallo M (2020) The concept of inventor in patent law and artificial intelligence systems. Cuad Derecho Transnacional 12:510

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schiemer J, Tawse N, O’Rourke JS (2019) Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: who owns property created by an algorithm or a robot? In: SAGE business cases. The Eugene D. Fanning Center for Business Communication, Mendoza College

    Google Scholar 

  32. Coguic L (2021) Forward thinking or right on time? A proposal to recognize authorship and inventorship to artificial intelligence. Indon J Int’l Comp L 8:223

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gibson J (2021) Artificial intelligence and patents: DABUS and methods for attracting enhanced attention to inventors. Queen Mary J Intellect Prop 11(4), Article 4

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rudzite L (2022) Certification as a remedy for recognition of the role of AI in the inventive process. Int Comp Jurisprud 8(1):112–128

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kidd M (2020) Using AI to invent? Australasian Biotechnology therapeutics: should artificial intelligence be recognised for inventive activity 30(1)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fujii H, Managi S (2018) Trends and priority shifts in artificial intelligence technology invention: a global patent analysis. Econ Anal Policy 58:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Adaka EE, Olubiyi IA (2022) Lessons for Nigeria: determining authorship and inventorship of artificial intelligence generated works. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol Law (JIPIT) 2(1):15–48

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schwartz DL, Rogers M (2022) Inventorless inventions? The constitutional conundrum of AI-produced inventions. Harv J Law Technol 35(2)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Naidoo M (2022) AI and legal personhood: an African perspective 906–906

    Google Scholar 

  40. Foss-Solbrekk K (2021) Three routes to protecting AI systems and their algorithms under IP law: the good, the bad and the ugly. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 16(3), Article 3

    Google Scholar 

  41. Saw CL, Chan S (2022) Of inventorship and patent ownership: examining the intersection between Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law. Singap J Leg Stud, Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  42. Devarapalli P (2020) Submission in response to the WIPO’s ‘draft issues paper on intellectual property policy and artificial intelligence’(Ref. No. WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1). Devarapalli, Pratap, Submission in Response to the Wipo’s “Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence”(Ref. No. Wipo/Ip/Ai/2/Ge/20/1)(Feb 14, 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Patra DSP (2022) Artificial inventors: a shift in traditional policy paradigm. J Intellect Prop Rights (JIPR) 26(3):119–126

    Google Scholar 

  44. Koopmann T, Stubbemann M, Kapa M, Paris M, Buenstorf G, Hanika T, Hotho A, Jäschke R, Stumme G (2021) Proximity dimensions and the emergence of collaboration: a HypTrails study on German AI research. Scientometrics 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chimuka G (2019) Impact of artificial intelligence on patent law. Towards a new analytical framework–[the Multi-Level Model]. World Patent Information 59:101926

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, 248007, India

    Kanishka Vaish, Rajesh Bahuguna & Samta Kathuria

  2. Uttaranchal Institute of Technology, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, 248007, India

    Kapil Joshi & Rajesh Singh

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun, India

    Rishika Yadav

Authors
  1. Kanishka Vaish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajesh Bahuguna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samta Kathuria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kapil Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rishika Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rajesh Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kanishka Vaish .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Vivek Shrivastava

  2. South Asian University New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Jagdish Chand Bansal

  3. Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, India

    B. K. Panigrahi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vaish, K., Bahuguna, R., Kathuria, S., Joshi, K., Yadav, R., Singh, R. (2024). The Challenge of Recognizing Artificial Intelligence as Legal Inventor: Implications and Analysis of Patent Laws. In: Shrivastava, V., Bansal, J.C., Panigrahi, B.K. (eds) Power Engineering and Intelligent Systems. PEIS 2023. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 1097. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7216-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7216-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-7215-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-7216-6

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation