PATENTABILITY OF AI-GENERATED INVENTIONS: LESSONS FROM DABUS LITIGATION

Abstract

Traditional patent law concepts, especially the idea of inventorship, have been seriously called into question by the quick development of artificial intelligence. Through the prism of the historic DABUS litigation, particularly Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, and concurrent actions in countries including the US, Australia, and the EU, this study critically investigates the patentability of AI-generated inventions. Under current patent systems, the DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) instances are the first systematic attempt to acknowledge an AI system as a inventor.

Whether existing legal frameworks, which are based on human inventorship, can accept ideas produced independently by AI systems is the main question this study attempts to answer. The study examines statutory definitions of "inventor" under patent laws, such as the Indian Patents Act of 1970, and contrasts them with international court rulings that have largely dismissed artificial intelligence as a legitimate inventor. It draws attention to the logic used by courts, stressing that inventorship necessitates natural personhood by definition, which excludes AI entities.

The paper also examines the policy ramifications of not granting patent protection to AI-generated ideas, including issues with ownership ambiguity, innovation incentives, and the possible impeding of technical advancement. It also takes into account the necessity of a sui generis legal framework and assesses other strategies, such as awarding inventorship to the AI developer, user, or owner.

This study makes the case based on the DABUS litigation that although current patent procedures are inadequate to handle AI-driven innovation, their complete exclusion could impede scientific progress. It ends by suggesting a fair legal reform that maintains the integrity of patent law while adjusting to new technological realities, especially in countries like India where there is still a lack of legislative clarity.