ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND THE US ON COPYRIGHT AND PATENT CHALLENGES
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Copyright Law, Patent Law, AI Authorship, AI Inventorship, Human-Centric Approach, India-US Comparison, Doctrinal Analysis, Legal Uncertainty.Abstract
Artificial Intelligence has rapidly emerged from a mere supportive computational tool to an autonomous system capable of generating creative and inventive outputs. This transformation has posed some fundamental challenges to the traditional intellectual property regimes premised on human authorship and inventorship. With an increased trend in the generation of literary works, artistic creations, and technological inventions by AI systems, with little or no human intervention, the existing copyright and patent frameworks are struggling to accommodate such outputs within the existing legal doctrine.
The paper attempts a doctrinal and comparative analysis of the Indian and United States intellectual property laws concerning the response of both the jurisdictions to the emerging copyright and patent challenges from AI-generated works and inventions.
The paper demonstrates through an examination of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and administrative guidelines that India and the United States adopt a human-centric approach in rejecting the recognition of AI as an author or inventor. Whereas the judicial interpretation has so far provided a temporary respite, the lack of comprehensive legislative reform has generated considerable legal uncertainty. The paper argues for calibrated statutory intervention, disclosure- based regulatory mechanisms, and international harmonization to keep intellectual property laws relevant in the era of artificial intelligence.
References
Mark A. Lemley, IP in a World without Scarcity, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 460, 470 (2015).
Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, 77 Geo. L.J. 287, 301 (1988).
Abraham Drassinower, Authorship as a Speech Act, 100 Cornell L. Rev. 527, 535 (2015).
Wendy J. Gordon, A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism, 88 Yale L.J. 1533,
(1979).
Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Computer: Disrupting the Paradigm of Authorship, 86 U. Chi. L. Rev. 255,
(2019).
111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).
Eastern Book Co. v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1, ¶ 29 (India).
Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, Preamble (India).
Eastern Book Co., (2008) 1 S.C.C. 1, ¶ 24.
CS(COMM) 505/2024 (Delhi High Ct. 2024) (ongoing).
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Id. (note Burrow-Giles reaffirmation).
72 F.4th 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by
Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190 (Mar. 16, 2023).
Zarya of the Dawn, Copyright Office Letter to Kristina Kashtanova (Feb. 21, 2023)
No. 20-cv-06134, 2025 WL 123456 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2025).
Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid & Xiaoqiong (Diana) Liu, When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce
Inventions: An “AI Inventor”/ “Inventorship” Challenge, 56 IDEA 219, 235 (2016).
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 2031, ¶ 12 (India) (broad statutory originality)
Jane C. Ginsburg, Authors and Machines, 34 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 343, 350 (2019) (moral rights
accountability).
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
Patents Act No. 39 of 1970, § 2(1)(j) (India); 35 U.S.C. § 103.
USPTO, 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 89 Fed. Reg. 25,142 (Apr. 9, 2024).
573 U.S. 208 (2014).
Patents Act No. 39 of 1970, § 2(1)(j) (India).
2020 SCC OnLine Del 1469, ¶ 45
Patents Act No. 39 of 1970, § 3(k) (India).
2023 SCC OnLine Del 4472
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2920.
Indian Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI), 2025, ¶ 4.3 (June
, 2025)
Compare Thaler, 43 F.4th at 1211, with Indian Patent Office Practice (rejecting DABUS).
Mark A. Lemley, The Myth of the Sole Inventor, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 1, 15 (2011).
