Protection Of Intellectual Property In AI-Curated Cross-Disciplinary Design Collaborations.
1. Introduction
AI-curated cross-disciplinary design collaborations involve multiple domains—like engineering, art, architecture, software, and biology—where AI tools assist in generating, refining, or combining ideas. While these collaborations enhance creativity and efficiency, they also raise complex intellectual property issues:
Authorship: Who owns AI-generated work—the AI, the human user, or the organization?
Patentability: Can an AI-assisted invention qualify for a patent?
Copyright: Does AI-generated content qualify for copyright protection?
Trade secrets & licensing: How to protect algorithms and collaborative designs across teams?
IP laws traditionally assume a human creator, so AI introduces gray areas.
2. Key Legal Issues in AI-Curated Designs
a) Authorship and Ownership
AI does not have legal personality; thus, IP rights typically cannot be assigned to AI itself.
Ownership often depends on:
Human contribution: Who curated the AI outputs?
Employment agreements: Work-for-hire clauses.
Licensing terms of the AI software.
b) Patent Challenges
AI can assist in inventing, but under most laws, patents require a human inventor.
Patent offices worldwide (US, EU, India) are examining whether AI can be considered an inventor.
c) Copyright Issues
Copyright protects original works of authorship.
AI-generated works without human creativity may not qualify.
d) Trade Secrets & Licensing
Cross-disciplinary projects often involve proprietary datasets or AI algorithms.
Confidentiality agreements and proper licensing are crucial to protect IP.
3. Illustrative Case Laws
Here are more than five detailed examples that have shaped the legal understanding of AI-generated or AI-assisted IP:
Case 1: Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (DABUS Case – US & UK)
Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler claimed that an AI system called DABUS was the inventor of two patents: one for a beverage container and another for a flashing light device.
Issue: Can an AI be recognized as an inventor under patent law?
Decision:
US: The USPTO rejected the patent application, stating that inventors must be natural persons.
UK: The UKIPO also rejected the application, emphasizing human inventorship.
Significance: This case illustrates that AI cannot currently hold patent rights, and only humans can be recognized as inventors, even if AI contributes substantially to an invention.
Case 2: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case – US)
Facts: A macaque named Naruto took a photograph using a photographer’s camera. The question arose whether the monkey could hold copyright.
Decision: The court ruled that animals cannot hold copyright because copyright law requires a human author.
Significance: By analogy, AI-generated works may also face challenges in copyright protection unless a human contributed creatively.
Case 3: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (US, 1991)
Facts: The Supreme Court held that mere compilation of facts does not create copyright unless there is original creativity.
Application to AI: AI can generate compilations of data across disciplines. Unless there is human creative input, such compilations may not qualify for copyright.
Case 4: UK Copyright Office Guidance on AI-Generated Works (2022)
Facts: The UK Copyright Office issued guidance that copyright can only subsist in works “generated by a human author.”
Implications:
If AI outputs are used as raw material, the human who curates, selects, or edits the output can claim copyright.
Cross-disciplinary collaborations must clearly document human intervention to secure IP rights.
Case 5: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (US, 2014)
Facts: Alice Corp’s patent application involved computer-implemented inventions.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that abstract ideas implemented via a computer are not patentable unless there is an inventive concept.
Implications for AI:
AI-assisted inventions may be scrutinized for human ingenuity.
Mere automation of design or process may not meet patentability criteria.
Case 6: Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (Australia, 2021)
Facts: The Australian Federal Court considered the same DABUS case.
Decision: Initially allowed AI as inventor but later overturned on appeal.
Significance: Even where some jurisdictions temporarily recognized AI as inventors, the trend is toward requiring human inventorship for legal IP protection.
Case 7: SAS Institute v. World Programming Ltd (EU, 2012)
Facts: This case involved software functionality copying. SAS claimed copyright over its programming language.
Decision: The Court of Justice of the European Union held that functionality, methods of operation, and programming languages are not copyrightable.
Implication for AI design: AI-curated cross-disciplinary outputs that replicate underlying functionality may not be protected under copyright but may be protected under patents or trade secrets if novel.
4. Practical Strategies for Protection in AI-Curated Design Collaborations
Document Human Contribution
Keep detailed records of decisions, selections, and edits humans make when using AI.
Contracts and Licensing
Ensure collaboration agreements define IP ownership clearly.
License AI tools properly.
Trade Secret Protection
For proprietary AI algorithms or datasets used in collaboration.
Patents
Emphasize human inventive contribution in the application.
Copyright
Focus on creative choices made by humans during AI-assisted design.
5. Conclusion
AI is a powerful tool for cross-disciplinary design, but it cannot yet hold IP rights independently. Protecting IP in such collaborations requires:
Human authorship recognition
Clear agreements among collaborators
Proper documentation of creative contributions
RELATED Blog
comments