Introduction
Recently in the Delhi High Court, Microsoft filed a suit against the rejection of its patent application under Section 3 (k) of the Indian Patent Act related to authentication methods for network location. The petitioner was contending the non-acceptance of a computer program that seeks to improve the security of computer networks, combining software and hardware. In the above case Delhi HC refused to entertain the suit on the ground that the Controller’s decision to reject the patent was based on the definition of Section 3 (k) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. One of the contentions of the Appellant was that the definition of Section 3 (k) which excludes the grant of patent protection to certain categories of invention such as a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or an algorithm, does not preclude the computer programs which provides a technical assistance to the hardware and software and hence the use of the words “per se”. Though the court did not agree with the appellant’s demands, it raises a few pertinent questions on the wide intersection of the use of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Properties.
If anything, artificial intelligence is the most dominant feature of the Industrial Revolution 4.0. The arrival of the new revolution brought with it many advanced and rapidly growing technologies all around the globe. Artificial intelligence, which was a part of science fiction once, has now become a part and parcel of every individual’s life. The world of AI is in a constant mode of development with different developers all around the globe competing in terms of a more efficient algorithm that would provide a greater degree of configuration. Due to such an effect, AI has been constantly encroaching upon different fields and areas and Intellectual property is not an exception to it.
Understanding Artificial Intelligence in Intellectual Property Rights in India
In India, the adoption of AI is progressing rapidly and is intertwined with crucial facets of technological advancement. Notably, AI has made its way into the judicial system, with judges exploring the use of AI-related applications to assist in rendering judgments. Similarly, the realm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has also witnessed the substantial integration of AI, marking a pivotal development in this field. AI technologies are currently being used to help with the registration, maintenance, and enforcement of Intellectual Property (IP) rights. According to a 2019 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) report, almost 340,000 AI-related inventions have been patented worldwide. Over half of these patents were issued between 2013 and 2018, indicating a significant rising trend. Machine learning tools are used by IP offices to sort incoming applications based on the technical field of the invention or the nature of the trademark, categorize products or services associated with a mark, translate prior art documents, conduct searches for earlier rights or prior art, and perform procedural checks. AI also is being used to find trademark infringement and to detect whether the marks are deceptively similar to each other or not.
Now the challenge begins when the question of ownership arises concerning the ideas or inventions created with the assistance of AI. The persisting impugnment can be explained by the issues that were raised in the landmark judgment of Burrow Gills Lithographic Company v. Sarony. In this judgment, the court considered the question with regards to the copyright issue of whether the copyright issuance can be conceded to an image as there was a contention between the mechanical work as well as the inventive. In a number of countries, like Spain and Germany, human-created works are protected by copyright, but not so for artificial intelligence. The position that was raised in the Burrow Gills case was finely asserted in a comparable judgment of Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. The court distinguished between human manifestations and those that were fabricated. Justice Holmes emphasized human instinct as a vital viewpoint for creating a copyrightable work. The court emphasized this and stated that there is no extension for anything to be copyrightable that was not the outcome of man’s inventiveness. Even though the court rejected the idea of an extension of copyrightable work crafted through computerized reasoning, it makes an important assertion. The idea that for the work to get copyright protection, it needs to have a human perspective, does reflect a solution to the conundrum of mechanical and inventive pursuits. However, in the UK, the position of ownership with regard to AI-crafted innovative work is contrary to the practice that is followed in the EU and the USA.
The situation is considerably more serious in emerging countries such as India, where basic infrastructure must be updated. In India, patent and copyright laws have been enacted. However, there are no explicit laws or regulations that govern AI. For instance, under Section 2(p) of the Patents Act, the use of the terms “patentee” and “participants” under Section 2(t) of the Act impedes the inclusion of AI in its scope. Currently, the rules and regimes are incompatible and are not in the remotest sense companionable with the emerging use of artificial intelligence. The Patent Act does not even recognise the inventive use of AI in the IPR sector. The deliberate use of the word “author” in the Patent Act fails to encompass the element of computer programs and also considers humans or legal entities as creators. This problem of non-recognition of AI in India is a serious inquiry that needs legislative attention.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in India poses significant challenges and opportunities for both legal frameworks and the evolving landscape of technology. AI has become an integral part of various aspects of modern life, including innovation and creativity. As the excerpt highlights, AI is increasingly being used in the field of IPR, from patent registration and maintenance to trademark infringement detection and prior art searches.
However, several critical questions and challenges remain unresolved. One of the primary concerns revolves around the ownership of inventions and creations generated with the assistance of AI. The issue of whether AI-generated works should be eligible for copyright or patent protection is a subject of debate and varies from one jurisdiction to another. In some countries, the emphasis is on the human perspective and creativity, while others are more inclusive of AI-generated works.
India, as an emerging player in the AI landscape, faces particular hurdles in adapting its existing patent and copyright laws to accommodate AI technologies adequately. The current legal definitions and terminologies do not explicitly recognize the role of AI in innovation, and there is a need for legislative attention and updates to ensure that AI-generated inventions are appropriately protected and acknowledged.
