The Evolving Link & Challenges between AI and Intellectual Property Rights
- kiranvenugopal
- Mar 17
- 7 min read
o Introduction:
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is advancing at an unprecedented pace, revolutionizing industries and fundamentally altering how we live and work. From autonomous vehicles to advanced data analytics, AI is becoming an integral part of technological innovation.
As AI continues to develop, it not only brings new opportunities but also presents unique challenges, particularly in the realm of intellectual property (IP). The relationship between AI and IP is increasingly complex, as AI systems themselves generate innovations, raise questions about ownership, and challenge traditional IP frameworks. Innovations driven by AI—whether through machine learning, deep learning, or neural networks—are prompting a re-evaluation of patent laws, copyright protections, and trade secret management. With AI's growing influence, the need for businesses, legal professionals, and policymakers to understand the intersection of AI and IP has never been more critical, ensuring that innovation is both protected and incentivized in this dynamic landscape.
o AI and Patent laws:
Since the introduction of AI, patent applications have surged, pushing the boundaries of traditional patent laws reflecting the growing impact of this technology across various sectors today. As AI innovations continue to accelerate, inventors and companies are increasingly seeking patent protection for AI-driven technologies and algorithms. The rise in patent filings is particularly evident in industries such as healthcare, automotive, and software, where AI is being integrated into groundbreaking solutions, from diagnostic tools to autonomous vehicles. This increase in patent activity highlights not only the rapid pace of AI development but also the importance of securing intellectual property rights to protect these novel advancements.
However, one of the biggest challenges faced is with regards to its patentability. As per Section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act which highlights on ‘what are not inventions’ includes ‘a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms’. Thus, excluding algorithms, mathematical methods or computer programs from being patented.
In the case, Blackberry Ltd. v. Controller of Patents & Designs, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6028, The Delhi High Court allowed to proceed forward with the appeal filed by Blackberry with regards to its patent application named ‘Auto-selection of Media Files’ which was rejected due to non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act as it is merely algorithm based. This patent application claimed that ‘this method manages media files on a device by assigning a confidence level to each file. It automatically selects and prioritizes files for storage based on their importance, optimizing available space efficiently. This approach optimizes storage use without manual intervention and improves the overall efficiency of the device’.
In this case, the court looked into, how the invention improves how well the device works by making it faster or more efficient, without needing to change things like how much storage it has. For example, it could make the device better at syncing media or managing its cache, which helps it run more smoothly. This improvement is considered a "technical effect" because it directly enhances the device's functionality. Since the invention brings a real, practical benefit to how the device works, it meets the requirements for a patent, showing it contributes something useful in a technical way.
In simple terms, for an invention that involves algorithms to be eligible for a patent, it must show that the algorithm brings about a real, practical improvement in how a device works. This means the invention should make the device more efficient, faster, or capable of performing tasks better than before. In India, for AI to be patented, it requires to include a ‘significant technical effect’ i.e. a measurable change in performance and functionality.
o AI and Trademarks:
AI technology has the ability to produce creative assets, including logos and brand names, raising questions about the eligibility of AI-generated trademarks for legal protection under Indian law. Indian trademark regulations stipulate that a trademark must be unique and capable of distinguishing the products or services of one business from those of others. Evaluating the distinctiveness of trademarks created by AI introduces a novel challenge in this context.
Using generative AI to create logos and brand names can lead to trademark infringement as they function by processing vast amounts of data and generating content based on patterns it finds in that data. Therefore, when you request the AI to create a brand name or logo, it may refer to a wide range of existing trademarks/ logos/ names in its database leading to plagiarism. Blaming the AI for the infringement won't serve as a valid defence in any case. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the company or the individual using the AI to ensure that the generated content does not infringe on existing trademarks. Even though the AI generates content based on patterns from vast amounts of data, the company or the individual is still accountable for reviewing and ensuring the originality of the final product.
Trademark Law in India has not yet fully adapted to the emerging challenges posed by AI technologies, leaving many unresolved issues regarding AI-generated trademarks. As AI continues to play a larger role in content creation, there is a significant gap between the rapid advancements in technology and the existing legal framework. Trademark law in India was not designed with AI in mind, and as a result, it lacks clear guidelines for addressing potential conflicts arising from AI-generated brand names, logos, and other trademarks.
o AI and Copyright Law:
To be eligible for copyright protection, a work must reflect the creator's unique expression and creative effort, distinguishing it from existing works. This emphasis on originality ensures that copyrights foster innovation, giving creators the exclusive right to their unique ideas while maintaining a balance with the public's access to knowledge and culture. However, AI-generated works may lack the human touch traditionally associated with creative expression. Determining whether AI-generated content meets the criteria for originality and creativity can be complicated, as the line between machine output and human input blurs.
AI is playing a critical role in creation of artistic and IP rights Indian copyright law is at a very initial stage with regards to cover the aspects of AI. ChatGPT cannot be named as ‘Authors’ in any work included under Copyrights. For being an Author under the Indian Copyright Law, a person should be a natural person/ an individual as elaborated under Section 17 of the Indian Copyright Act. One of the interesting fact in the definition of ‘Author’ under Section 2(d)(vi) states that ‘Author’ means in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created. One may be of the notion that this can include AI as an Author within the law but this issue with regards to ‘originality’ still stays. This poses a challenge in the works created by AI as simply providing a prompt to a generative AI model is often not enough to establish this originality. For a work to qualify as original, it typically must reflect a certain level of creativity or intellectual input from the author—something that is more than just the mechanical input of commands. The work that includes an original input by human is much easier to bifurcate the authorship. When an AI is responsible in creating the whole work by itself , this raises questions about who owns the copyright—the creator of the AI, the user directing the AI, or no one at all.
If an AI system generates content that infringes on existing copyrights (such as using copyrighted material without permission, it can be difficult to assign liability. Legal frameworks must adapt to address the issue of authorship in an AI-driven context.
o Conclusion:
The article touches on an important and timely issue, but it only scratches the surface of the many challenges that lie ahead as AI technology rapidly develops and becomes an increasingly integral part of our daily lives. As AI continues to evolve, the complexities surrounding its role in creation—particularly in relation to intellectual property (IP) rights—will multiply.
What’s clear from the current discourse is that the line between human authorship and AI-generated content is becoming increasingly blurred. The idea that a simple prompt can lead to the creation of a work is a starting point, but the real question is how much human input is necessary to warrant authorship and, by extension, intellectual property protection. Will we continue to attribute full authorship to the individuals who interact with AI, or will we see a future where the AI itself is recognized as a creator? Moreover, as AI-generated works become more sophisticated and independent, new issues may arise regarding who owns the rights to a work created by an algorithm that operates autonomously, without direct human input.
Additionally, this issue extends far beyond mere attribution of authorship. AI has the potential to create vast quantities of content at unprecedented speeds, raising questions about how we assess the originality of AI-generated works. As AI tools become more accessible, the volume of such content is likely to increase exponentially, leading to the need for clearer guidelines on how to define and enforce IP rights in this new landscape.
Furthermore, the legal framework for intellectual property rights may need a complete overhaul to address AI's role in creation, distribution, and monetization. Existing laws were designed with human creators in mind, and as such, they may not be fully equipped to handle the nuances of AI-generated content. Without timely updates to IP law, creators, developers, and even consumers may face significant legal uncertainty.
In light of these complexities, it’s crucial for legislators, courts, and IP experts to begin addressing the nuances of AI in intellectual property law now, rather than waiting until the issues become more entrenched. Only then can we ensure a fair and equitable system that recognizes the rights of creators while also accounting for the growing influence of AI in the creative process.
The debate is just beginning, but one thing is certain: the rapid development of AI demands proactive legal attention, and the challenges we face today are only the tip of the iceberg.
o References:
Comments