AI, IPR, And The Evolving Legal Landscape in India

Posted On - 12 December, 2024 • By - Himanshu Deora

Introduction:

Industries across the globe, including that of India, are changing with AI and changing healthcare, finance, manufacturing and education. However, such developments bring colossal legal and ethical challenges as well, especially pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights. There is enough protection under the current legal structure, primarily the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970 for Indian creations and innovations related to AI-generated content. Shri Som Parkash, a Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, recently clarified that a new set of rights for AI-generated works is certainly not in demand right now since existing laws seem to be well-equipped enough to take care of such innovations. As AI evolves, India must navigate this complex interplay of technology and law, balancing innovation with the protection of human creativity.

The intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and copyright law in India raises complex questions about originality and authorship under the Copyright Act, 1957. Originality, a prerequisite for copyright protection, has traditionally been linked to human intellectual effort. While those who argue in favor believe that the human inputs into training AI systems-that is, curating data and designing architectures-impart originality, others say AI’s outputs do not bring enough creativity into the work. The definition outlines an “author” to be one that causes the work to be created-excluding AI systems from legal personhood. This creates ambiguity over the ownership and protection of AI-generated works. Addressing these challenges may require legislative amendments and collaborative efforts among legal, technological, and policy stakeholders.

There are challenging issues of inventorship and patentability raised by AI and patent law in India. Section 6 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, says that a “true and first inventor” can alone apply for a patent, or his assignee, with traditional human inventorship. Should AI be qualified as an “inventor” when it independently generates inventions patentable? However, the autonomous invention capabilities of AI challenge this framework as it lacks legal personhood. Sections 2(1)(p), 2(1)(s), and 2(1)(y) provide a wider definition of “person,” but the Act tacitly favors the presence of human beings. Most AI-generated inventions usually satisfy other criteria of patentability, like novelty and industrial applicability, but the “inventive step” would be more challenging to determine and human effort put into training AI models will not be accounted for. India requires legislative reforms: to accept AI as a co-inventor, to encourage ingenuity under clearer legal conditions.

Trademarks have been traditionally considered as an indicator of the uniqueness of a brand, as merged into human creativity. AI certainly runs against this grain by creating trademarks on its own and, therefore raises questions about ownership, originality, and recognition legally. For instance, the existing laws are silent on the rights over AI-generated marks or how unique such marks are bound to be. Secondly, ethical concerns in terms of unconscious imitation and reputation damage do exist. These call for amendment to the Act to introduce provisions regarding ownership and to have standard procedures set against AI-generated trademarks. To create this balance and respond to the needs of policymakers, lawyers, and other stakeholders, harmonization of AI-driven innovations and intellectual property principles would be pivotal.

AI And IPR: Across Various Jurisdictions

The legal status of AI in the United States is changing regarding Intellectual Property Rights IPR. Patent Law: Patents are awarded on inventions created by the AI system, but AI, as a system, cannot be designated as an inventor, as the Thaler v. Vidal case has already established. There is an increase in patent filing for AI innovations, particularly in healthcare; however, only humans can be granted the status of an inventor. Copyright: The United States End. The copyright act obligates writers to be human beings; thus, AI cannot be credited as an author of works. The US Copyright office denied authorship by AI and noted that there needs to be a human owning the right, and the laws that have been established include the National AI Initiative Act and the Future of AI Innovation Act to set a framework for AI development as safe, innovative, and ethical. While these laws are adapting, challenges around AI’s role in data privacy, ownership, and security, especially in biomedical sectors, remain.

The law relating to AI and IPR is rapidly emerging in the European Union as AI technologies interact with established patent, copyright, and data protection regimes. The EPO admits CII by AI-driven inventions and grants a patent when an AI solution is applied technically to a problem, as in biomedical applications. Another issue is copyright itself, where AI-generated creativity clashes head-on with the current laws and frameworks that were not created to address the role of AI in authorship. However, the 2019 DSM directive did focus on data mining and AI, thus directly or indirectly affecting the copyright landscape (European Union, 2019). In addition, the new EU AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation set new standards of data protection and transparency over the development of AI as well as its relation with IPR in Europe (European Commission, 2023a; Official Journal of the European Union, 2024). Such regulations could take particular interest in how IP law responds to further AI innovation going forward.

Indian legal position on AI and IPR is still under its developmental stages with many loose ends. Under the amended Indian Patent Act 2005 patents are permissible for inventions related to new products or processes which have industrial applicability. However, AI-based inventions are uncertain because of legal exclusions pursuant to computer programs and algorithms that are not patented unless put into practical application in a machine or device (Lokur et al., 2023). Despite these limitations, patent applications concerning AI matters have increased to alarming extent in India, especially in health care (NASSCOM, 2024). For such AI-generated works, the Copyright Laws prevailing in India are quite outdated, as they recognize only human authorship, although some AI systems are granted co-authorship (Sarkar, 2021).

India does not have an established, broad framework of data protection for the biomedical sector, while the DPDP Act 2023 did bring in essential principles regarding the protection of personal data. While it provides opportunities for ethical AI development, the DPDP Act’s constraints related to processing and consent-related issues pose further restrictions on AI innovation in the health sector, in the view of Mukhija and Jaiswal (2023). The Indian government has actually recognized the possibility of AI in health care, and is working towards IP reforms, including recommendations for a new category in the IPR regime dedicated to AI for support in pharmaceutical research.

Conclusion

It is an ocean of massive opportunities and challenges for India at the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While the legal frameworks in place are currently satisfied, mostly through the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Patents Act, 1970, regarding man-made innovations, they lack the strength to address AI-generated works and inventions. This is because there is uncertainty regarding its status as an author or inventor, not to mention that there is no all-round IPR framework for AI. When AI continues to advance, India has to keep its intellectual property laws dynamic with understanding for creativity and protecting the human workmanship. Therefore, legislative reforms are needed; in fact, AI can be recognized as a co-author or co-inventor. The policy of balancing strong consideration for the intellectual-property principles against the affirmative help and facilitation of AI-driven progress will depend on a collaborative approach involving policymakers, legal experts, and the stakeholders.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com