Ipr In AI-Assisted Scientific Research Ip.

08 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction: IPR in AI-Assisted Research

AI is increasingly being used in scientific research for tasks like drug discovery, material design, genomics, and more. AI systems can generate inventions, discoveries, or even research outputs that traditionally would require human creativity. This raises unique questions:

Who owns the invention? Is it the AI developer, the user of AI, or is it public domain because AI is not a legal person?

Can AI be listed as an inventor in patents? Traditional patent laws require an inventor to be a human.

Who has copyright over AI-generated works? AI-generated content is often automatically created without human authorship.

The key issue is whether existing IP law can protect innovations assisted or fully created by AI.

2. AI and Patent Law

Patent law requires:

Novelty – The invention must be new.

Inventive Step – It must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

Patentable Subject Matter – The invention must fall within legal patentable categories.

Inventorship – A human inventor must be identified.

AI challenges especially the inventorship requirement.

Case Law 1: Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (DABUS Case – US, 2021)

Facts:
Stephen Thaler filed a patent application for an invention created by an AI system called DABUS. He listed DABUS as the inventor.

Decision:
The US Patent Office rejected the application, holding that inventors must be natural persons, not AI. The court upheld this, emphasizing that current patent law requires human creativity.

Significance:

AI cannot be recognized as an inventor in the US.

Humans who use AI may claim inventorship if they contribute to the inventive concept.

Sparks debate: Should patent law be revised for AI?

Case Law 2: Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents (UK, 2021)

Facts:
Same DABUS invention was filed in the UK. Thaler argued that the AI should be recognized as an inventor.

Decision:
The UK Intellectual Property Office and later the High Court rejected this, reaffirming inventors must be human.

Key Point:

AI can assist, but legal recognition of AI as inventor is currently denied globally.

The UK IPO stated: "AI-generated inventions must have a human applicant."

Case Law 3: European Patent Office (EPO) DABUS Case (2020–2022)

Facts:
The EPO received a patent application listing DABUS as inventor.

Decision:

The EPO rejected it, saying Article 81 EPC requires a natural person as an inventor.

Applicants tried multiple appeals, all unsuccessful.

Significance:

Confirms a consistent international approach: AI cannot yet hold patent rights.

Raises questions about ownership of AI-assisted inventions.

3. AI and Copyright Law

Human authorship

Originality and creativity

AI challenges this because AI can autonomously generate text, images, music, and research outputs.

Case Law 4: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, US, 2018)

Facts:
A macaque monkey took selfies with a photographer’s camera. The photographer claimed copyright; animal rights activists argued the monkey should own it.

Decision:
The court ruled animals cannot hold copyright, emphasizing that non-humans cannot be authors.

Relevance to AI:

Just like animals, AI cannot hold copyright under current law.

AI-generated research papers or datasets cannot automatically get copyright.

Case Law 5: Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (Copyright Aspect, 2023, Australia)

Facts:
In Australia, Thaler also sought copyright protection for AI-generated works created by DABUS.

Decision:

The court stated that copyright can exist only if a human author is responsible for the work.

AI cannot be recognized as an author.

Significance:

Aligns with global trend: AI-generated outputs are not automatically protected.

Ownership may be attributed to the person controlling or training the AI.

4. Implications for Scientific Research

AI-Assisted Drug Discovery:

AI may suggest novel molecules.

Humans must refine or select inventions to be patentable.

AI in Material Science:

AI generates new alloys or materials.

Researchers filing patents must show human inventive contribution.

Authorship in Scientific Papers:

AI can draft sections of papers.

Humans must review and approve to retain authorship.

Collaborative Research with AI:

Ownership agreements must clarify contributions.

AI cannot currently hold IP rights; humans or institutions do.

5. Summary of Key Points

Aspect	Current Legal Position	Case References
Patent Inventor	Must be a human	Thaler v. USPTO, Thaler v. UK IPO, EPO DABUS
Copyright Author	Must be human	Naruto v. Slater, Thaler v. Australia
Ownership of AI Outputs	Controlled by humans or institutions	Global trend, reflected in above cases
Implication for Research	AI assists, humans own IP	Pharmaceutical, material, and computational research