Ipr In AI-Assisted Pharmaceutical Robots Patents.
IPR in AI-Assisted Pharmaceutical Robots: Patents and Case Laws
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted pharmaceutical robots are increasingly being used for drug discovery, synthesis, testing, and automation of lab processes. Protecting these inventions under patent law raises unique intellectual property rights (IPR) challenges due to questions of inventorship, patentability of AI-generated outputs, and technical contribution.
Here’s a detailed analysis with relevant case laws.
1. Thaler v. Hirshfeld / Thaler v. Vidal (DABUS) – USA
Jurisdiction: United States
Key Issue: Can an AI system be named as the inventor on a patent?
Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler submitted patent applications listing DABUS, an AI system, as the sole inventor.
Holding: The USPTO rejected the applications because under U.S. law, an inventor must be a natural person.
Significance: This case establishes that AI cannot be legally recognized as an inventor in the U.S., even if it autonomously generates the inventive idea. Human involvement is required to meet inventorship standards.
2. Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents – UK
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Key Issue: Can AI be recognized as an inventor under the UK Patents Act 1977?
Facts: Thaler appealed in the UK after patent refusal for AI inventor recognition.
Holding: The UK Supreme Court ruled that inventors must be human; AI cannot be legally recognized as an inventor.
Significance: Confirms human inventorship requirement in AI-assisted inventions, including pharmaceutical robots.
3. DABUS Decisions – Australia and South Africa
Australia: Initially, the Federal Court allowed AI as an inventor, interpreting “inventor” broadly. However, this was later overturned by the Full Court, aligning with other jurisdictions: only humans can be inventors.
South Africa: Granted a patent naming DABUS as the inventor, showing a rare deviation from global norms.
Significance: Highlights jurisdictional variation; patent strategies for AI-assisted pharmaceutical robots must consider local laws.
4. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014) – USA
Jurisdiction: United States
Key Issue: Patent eligibility of software-implemented ideas.
Facts: Alice Corp. claimed a computer-implemented method for financial transactions.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled abstract ideas implemented on a computer are not patentable unless they produce a technical improvement.
Significance: AI algorithms in pharmaceutical robots must demonstrate a technical effect, not just perform abstract computations, to qualify for patent protection.
5. Ferid Allani v. Union of India – Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction: India
Key Issue: Patentability of software-related inventions.
Facts: Ferid Allani challenged the rejection of software-related patent claims.
Holding: Software demonstrating a technical effect can be patentable in India.
Significance: Provides a pathway for AI-assisted pharmaceutical inventions to be patented in India, as long as they achieve a real-world technical effect (e.g., automated drug synthesis).
6. Novartis v. Union of India (2013) – Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: India
Key Issue: Standards for novelty, inventive step, and pharmaceutical patents.
Facts: Novartis applied for a patent on a modified drug compound.
Holding: The Supreme Court clarified that mere modifications without improved therapeutic efficacy are not patentable.
Significance: For AI-assisted pharmaceutical robots, the resulting compounds or processes must be novel, non-obvious, and useful, regardless of AI involvement.
7. European Patent Office (EPO) Decisions on AI
Key Issue: Recognition of AI as inventor and patent eligibility of AI-related inventions.
Facts: EPO cases (e.g., related to DABUS) examined whether AI can be an inventor and if AI-generated inventions are patentable.
Holding: AI cannot be listed as an inventor; AI-generated inventions must demonstrate a technical effect or solve a technical problem.
Significance: Pharmaceutical robots using AI must demonstrate concrete technical improvements (e.g., more precise drug synthesis, faster screening of molecules) to meet EPO patent standards.
Key Legal Principles Across Cases
Human Inventorship: Inventors must be natural persons. AI cannot legally be an inventor.
Technical Contribution: AI-assisted inventions must show a technical effect or improvement, not just abstract computations.
Patent Eligibility: Algorithms alone are generally not patentable; they must result in a specific technical application.
Jurisdictional Differences: Some countries (like South Africa) may temporarily allow AI inventorship, but most major jurisdictions (US, UK, EU, India) require human inventorship.
Compliance with Patentability Standards: Even AI-designed pharmaceutical compounds must satisfy novelty, non-obviousness, and utility requirements.
Implications for AI-Assisted Pharmaceutical Robots
Human Inventorship: Identify humans responsible for conceptualizing the AI-assisted innovation.
Technical Claims: Ensure the patent claims emphasize technical improvements or real-world applications.
International Strategy: File patents considering the jurisdictional differences regarding AI inventorship.
Documentation: Maintain detailed records showing human contribution to the inventive process.
Conclusion
AI-assisted pharmaceutical robots can be patented, but only if:
A human is listed as the inventor.
The invention demonstrates a tangible technical contribution.
The AI’s output meets novelty, inventive step, and utility standards.
RELATED Blog
comments