When Humans Use AI to Earn Patents, Who Is Inventing?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionising numerous sectors, ranging from healthcare to entertainment, finance to education. In recent years, AI has been making its mark in the realm of innovation, helping researchers, scientists, and technologists create new inventions more efficiently. 

However, as AI’s role in the inventive process grows, a crucial legal question arises: when AI assists in inventing, who should be recognised as the inventor? Is it the human who developed the AI tool or the machine itself? 

This question has significant implications for patent law across the globe, especially in jurisdictions like India, where the concept of inventorship is traditionally human-centric.

The Concept of Patents and Inventorship

Patents are legal protections granted to individuals or entities who have developed a new and useful invention. In India, the Patents Act, 1970 outlines that an inventor must be a natural person. 

A patent grants the inventor exclusive rights to their creation for a limited period, typically 20 years, in exchange for the public disclosure of their invention. The main purpose of patent law is to incentivise innovation by protecting inventors and encouraging them to share their discoveries with the world.

In India, patent law clearly states that an inventor must be a natural person, meaning a human being. The legal system has historically recognised that inventors must possess human intellect, creativity, and ingenuity to make a significant contribution to the creation of an invention. 

With the rise of AI in the innovation process, however, this traditional understanding of inventorship is being challenged.

The Role of AI in Modern Innovation

AI, especially generative AI systems, is now being used in a variety of fields to assist in the creation of new inventions. In sectors like pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and material sciences, AI tools can predict chemical compounds, generate software code, and simulate various scenarios to accelerate the development of new technologies. In some cases, AI can even autonomously create new inventions, such as drug formulations or innovative designs, based on pre-programmed algorithms and data analysis.

A study conducted by MIT researchers highlighted the impact of AI in research. The study found that scientists using AI tools increased their patent filings by 39% and developed 17% more prototypes compared to those who did not use AI. These findings suggest that AI is not merely a supplementary tool but a driving force behind the innovation process.

Despite these advancements, many researchers and professionals in the field express concerns. While AI enhances productivity, it also raises questions about the role of human inventors. If AI can autonomously generate innovative solutions, what does that mean for the concept of inventorship? Is it fair to credit AI with the invention, or should the human who guided the AI be the rightful inventor?

Global Legal Perspectives on AI and Inventorship

The legal systems around the world are still grappling with the question of who should be credited as the inventor when AI is involved in the creation of a new invention. One of the most notable cases in this regard was the DABUS case in the United States. 

DABUS, an AI system, generated two inventions—a food container and a flashing emergency beacon. However, when DABUS attempted to list itself as the inventor on patent applications, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the idea, stating that under U.S. law, only a human can be listed as an inventor.

In response to this issue, the USPTO released updated guidance in 2024, clarifying that while AI tools may aid in the inventive process, inventors must still be human. This guidance reinforced the notion that AI is a tool in the innovation process, rather than an independent inventor.

In India, the situation remains largely similar. The Patents Act, 1970 does not explicitly address AI in the context of inventorship, but it firmly requires that an inventor be a natural person. Therefore, if an AI system plays a role in creating an invention, the human being who contributed intellectually to the invention—whether through developing the AI system or recognising the invention’s potential—will be listed as the inventor.

Defining the Line Between Human and AI Contribution

The central issue in the debate over AI and inventorship lies in defining the role of AI in the inventive process. If AI contributes significantly to the creation of an invention, can we still consider the human developer or researcher as the sole inventor? Or should AI, at some point, be recognised as a co-inventor?

One key legal concept in patent law is conception, which refers to the mental act of formulating the idea for an invention. Conception is a fundamental requirement for inventorship in most jurisdictions, including India. According to this concept, an inventor is someone who has conceived the idea for the invention in a manner that is concrete and complete.

AI, in its current form, lacks the mental capacity for conception. It does not have the ability to think independently or intentionally create something novel. Instead, AI relies on algorithms and data to generate outputs based on pre-programmed instructions. As a result, it is widely accepted in legal circles that AI does not qualify as an inventor, as it cannot fulfil the mental act of conception that patent law requires.

However, AI can significantly assist in the conception process by generating novel ideas, providing solutions, and suggesting innovations. In such cases, the human inventor who guides the AI and contributes intellectually to the process remains the rightful inventor.

Perspectives from Global Task Forces

To address the complex issue of AI and inventorship, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) launched a task force focused on intellectual property (IP) in the AI era. This task force convened several workshops with stakeholders from the innovation ecosystem, including representatives from biotechnology, technology sectors, and academia.

The task force reached several key conclusions:

AI is a Tool, Not an Inventor

The consensus was that AI should be viewed as a sophisticated tool rather than an inventor. While AI can assist in the inventive process, it lacks the intentionality and creativity required for inventorship.

Human Ingenuity Remains Central

Despite AI’s growing capabilities, human ingenuity continues to be the driving force behind inventions. It is the human inventor who recognises the potential of AI-generated ideas & aistudios and contributes intellectually to the final product.

No Immediate Need for Legal Changes

There was no significant push to change patent laws to recognise AI as an inventor. Instead, it was agreed that existing laws were sufficient to address the role of AI in invention creation.

AI-Enabled Inventions Should Be Patented

The task force agreed that inventions resulting from AI assistance should be eligible for patent protection. However, human inventors must be identified as the creators of the invention, as they are the ones who contribute intellectually.

Implications for Indian Patent Law

India’s patent system must address the growing role of AI in innovation. While the Patents Act, 1970 currently requires that only human inventors can be listed on patent applications, there is a need for the Indian Patent Office to provide clear guidelines on how to handle inventions involving AI.

For instance, the Indian Patent Office could issue guidance on how to identify and disclose AI contributions in patent applications. It could also clarify how AI’s role in the inventive process should be reflected in patent filings. This would help avoid confusion and ensure that innovators can confidently use AI tools without fear of legal uncertainty.

The Future of AI and Inventorship

As AI continues to evolve, the line between human and machine contributions will likely blur further. Some experts predict that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—AI capable of independent thought and decision-making—could eventually emerge. If this happens, it may force a rethinking of the concept of inventorship, as AI systems might develop the capacity to create inventions autonomously.

Until then, however, AI will remain a tool in the hands of human innovators. It is essential for patent laws, both in India and globally, to evolve in a way that acknowledges AI’s role in innovation while preserving the central role of human inventors.

Conclusion

The rise of AI in innovation brings new opportunities and challenges to patent law. While AI plays an increasingly important role in the invention process, current patent laws, including those in India, continue to recognise only humans as inventors. As AI tools become more sophisticated, legal frameworks must evolve to address new questions about inventorship, without undermining the importance of human creativity and ingenuity.

In India, the Patents Act, 1970 should provide clear guidance on AI’s role in innovation, ensuring that inventors can confidently navigate the patent system. By maintaining a balance between human inventorship and AI’s contributions, India can continue to foster a robust innovation ecosystem that harnesses the full potential of artificial intelligence.