DABUS CASE ARRIVING ON INDIA: PART

Inventorship, the requirement that all inventors be named in a patent application, is a fundamental aspect of patent law. However, in spite of its critical role in the patent system, there is neither a universally accepted definition of an "inventor" nor a standardised set of criteria for the determination of inventorship. Particularly in the context of artificial intelligence generated inventions, the interpretation of these concepts varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

1.The Complexity of Inventorship Across Jurisdictions

The patent system in each country defines the status of the inventor according to its own legal framework, which leads to differences in the way in which inventors are recognised. Some jurisdictions, particularly in response to developments in the field of artificial intelligence, adhere strictly to the notion that only natural persons can be inventors, while others are beginning to explore more flexible approaches (see South Africa). This lack of harmonisation creates practical and legal difficulties for innovating and patenting companies operating in multiple jurisdictions.

The debate over whether an AI can be considered an inventor gained global attention in the wake of the so-called DABUS cases. These cases fundamentally challenged the traditional pillars of inventorship, prompting divergent legal interpretations across jurisdictions.

2.  Dabus Case: Legal Challenges and Diverging Views

For those who are not familiar with it, DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence system developed by Dr Stephen Thaler. Its purpose is to autonomously generate inventions without direct human intervention.

As a result, the AI developed two inventions, which were submitted to various patent offices for consideration. Rather than focusing on whether these inventions met the criteria for patentability, the filings sparked a fundamental debate about the nature of inventorship—should it remain exclusive to natural persons, or could AI be recognized as an inventor?

In this regard, the DABUS case has highlighted significant legal challenges surrounding AI inventorship.  In this respect, the majority of the countries follow the approach of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the USPTO. Both, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), have rejected the notion of AI as an inventor, emphasizing that inventorship is strictly limited to natural persons. The EPO based its decision on Article 81 and Rule 19 of the EPC, citing that only humans can be inventors since AI lacks legal personality and cannot hold or transfer intellectual property rights.  Similarly, the USPTO ruled that according to its regulations consistently defines inventors as individuals. However, some countries, such as South Africa, have granted the patent, sparking significant debate.

Beyond inventorship, the DABUS case has ignited discussions on ownership and usage rights for AI-generated innovations. While some advocate for revising traditional patent frameworks to acknowledge AI’s role in the inventive process, others caution against the ethical and legal complexities such changes could introduce. The evolving landscape of AI-generated inventions continues to challenge conventional legal principles, prompting a necessary revaluation of how intellectual property laws should adapt to emerging technologies.

3.  The Legal Framework for Inventorship in India

According to Section 6 of the Indian Patents Act, only the "true and first inventor" or his assignee is entitled to apply for a patent. In addition, Section 2(1)(p) defines a patentee as the person registered as the grantee or owner of a patent. This reinforces the notion that inventorship traditionally implies a natural person. However, a degree of ambiguity is introduced by Section 2(1)(s), which broadens the definition of "person" to include non-natural entities such as governments. While Section 2(1)(y) provides an exclusionary definition of "true and first inventor", it does not explicitly state that the inventor must be a natural person, leaving room for interpretation as to whether human involvement is a necessary criterion for patentability.

4. The DABUS Case in India and the Opposition to AI Inventorship

In this context, the DABUS case has also reached the Indian Patent Office.  Dr. Stephen Thaler filed a patent application (Food Container and Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention, Application No. 202017019068), naming AI as the inventor. However, this application was met with a pre-grant opposition from Dr. Kankanala, who contended that AI could not be considered an inventor under Indian patent law.

Dr. Kankanala's opposition relied on key provisions of the Indian Patents Act, particularly Sections 2(1)(y) and 6, emphasizing that Indian patent law inherently requires human inventorship. His argument asserted that the Indian patent system is designed to foster and reward human ingenuity, and as such, an AI-generated invention falls outside its legal scope.

While the DABUS case primarily raises the question of whether an inventor must be a natural person, it also brings to light another critical issue: compliance with disclosure requirements. Patent law does not merely grant monopolies; it does so under the condition that, once the patent expires, the disclosed invention becomes publicly available for others to replicate and build upon. Sections 25(1)(f) and 25(1)(h) of the Indian Patents Act were cited in the opposition, arguing that the application failed to meet these disclosure requirements, as the applicant allegedly withheld material information.

This aspect of the case underscores the fundamental purpose of the patent system: to balance the interests of inventors and the public by ensuring that innovations are sufficiently disclosed for future use. If AI-generated inventions challenge this principle—either by raising questions about the nature of the inventor or by complicating the requirement of full disclosure—it may necessitate a reconsideration of current patent frameworks.

As the debate over AI-generated inventions unfolds, the DABUS case highlights not only the question of whether AI can be an inventor but also the broader implications for disclosure and public access to patented knowledge. The case reinforces the urgent need for legislative clarity in defining AI’s role in innovation while ensuring that fundamental principles of the patent system—such as the requirement for complete and transparent disclosure—are upheld. That having said, we must await the Patent Office’s decision; however, it is certain that the DABUS case has introduce new challenges and raise important questions within the Indian Patent System.