top of page
Search

Navigating the Intersection of AI and Intellectual Property in India

  • Writer: Kiratraj Sadana
    Kiratraj Sadana
  • May 29
  • 4 min read

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept—it's transforming industries in real time. From personalized education tools to automated legal services and predictive healthcare diagnostics, AI is redefining how value is created. In India, this technological wave brings both immense promise and a pressing challenge: how can our current Intellectual Property (IP) laws keep up?

This article explores how India's existing IP framework interacts with AI, highlights the gaps that need to be addressed, and suggests a path forward by learning from global experiences.


The Current Legal Landscape: Can AI Fit Into Human-Centric IP Laws?

India’s intellectual property regime, like most global systems, was designed with human creators and inventors in mind. This makes applying existing laws to AI-generated outputs difficult.

  1. Copyright and AI

    Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright is granted only to works created by humans. But what happens when an AI writes a poem, composes a song, or generates digital artwork? As of now, Indian law is silent. Courts have yet to weigh in, leaving businesses and creators uncertain about ownership and enforceability.

  2. Patents and AI

    India’s Patents Act, 1970 requires that an inventor be a human being. Globally, cases like the DABUS patent applications (where an AI was listed as the inventor) have been rejected. India aligns with this trend. But as AI increasingly contributes to technical innovations, questions about who should be recognized as the inventor—and who owns the invention—are becoming urgent.

  3. Trademarks and AI

    AI has made the process of filing and monitoring trademarks faster and more accurate. However, complications arise when AI creates a brand name or logo. Who owns the rights to that creation? Can it be registered? Indian law doesn’t currently provide answers.

  4. Industrial Designs and AI

    The Designs Act, 2000 also presumes a human designer. As AI starts generating product designs autonomously, from fashion to consumer tech, these designs may fall outside the protective scope of existing law.



Key Challenges in Harmonizing AI and Intellectual Property in India

As AI becomes more capable and autonomous, several legal gray areas have emerged:


  1. Ambiguous Ownership

    Current IP laws in India assume a human creator or inventor. When an AI autonomously generates content or inventions, there's no clear legal provision determining who owns the resulting IP.


  1. Accountability in Infringement

    If an AI tool inadvertently generates infringing material, current laws don’t specify whether the developer, deployer, or user is liable.


  1. Cross-Border Enforcement

    AI tools operate globally. Enforcing IP rights becomes tricky when the AI’s deployment, usage, and output span multiple jurisdictions.


  2. Innovation Deterrence

    Lack of clarity in IP protection for AI-generated innovations may disincentivize R&D investments and hinder AI adoption.



International Responses: What the World Is Doing

United States

  • U.S. courts have rejected AI as inventors but recognize AI’s role in innovation. Legislative debates are ongoing.

European Union

  • The EU is exploring options to give limited IP rights to AI-generated works under specific conditions. They’ve also initiated broad consultations on AI and data ownership.

United Kingdom

  • UK law currently does not recognize AI inventorship, but active consultations are underway to evolve the framework.

China

  • China is taking a more aggressive approach, updating examination guidelines and promoting AI’s integration into IP enforcement systems.


A Blueprint for Indian Policymakers

India doesn’t need to start from scratch. By examining global efforts and tailoring solutions to its own legal and commercial realities, India can lead in shaping AI-era IP law. Here’s what needs to be done:

  1. Update Legal Definitions

    1. Why it’s important:

      Current IP statutes define authorship, inventorship, and ownership in human-centric terms. As AI systems become more autonomous, these definitions no longer suffice.

    2. What should be done:

      1. Amend the Copyright Act, Patents Act, and Designs Act to clearly define terms like “AI-generated” and “AI-assisted” works.

      2. Establish a legal threshold to distinguish between minimal AI support (e.g., spellcheck) and substantial AI contribution (e.g., autonomous code generation).

    3. How to implement:

      1. Set up a law reform committee under the Ministry of Commerce or DPIIT.

      2. Invite public comments, industry feedback, and academic studies to draft inclusive legal definitions.


  2. Establish Ownership Frameworks

    1. Why it’s important:

      Without clear rules on who owns AI-generated IP, rights are disputed or go unclaimed—deterring commercial exploitation.

    2. What should be done:

      Introduce a tiered ownership model:

      • Developer-led ownership for foundational models.

      • User-led ownership for context-specific outputs (e.g., image generated by a prompt).

      • Joint ownership or licensing models in enterprise or collaborative settings.

    3. How to implement:

      • Include these frameworks in amendments to the Copyright and Patent Acts.

      • Issue administrative guidance from CGPDTM to interpret ownership until law is amended.


  3. Clarify Liability

    1. Why it’s important:

      If an AI inadvertently infringes on IP or creates plagiarized content, there must be legal clarity on who bears the consequences.

    2. What should be done:

      Introduce statutory standards of care:

      • Developers must ensure training data is lawful.

      • Users must ensure responsible use.

      • Create safe harbor provisions for good-faith compliance.

    3. How to implement:

      • Add a chapter on AI liability to the Copyright Act.

      • Consider a separate legislation on algorithmic accountability, similar to the Digital India Act draft.


  4. Encourage Global Collaboration

    1. Why it’s important:

      AI systems and IP assets frequently cross borders. Enforcement becomes harder when laws differ widely.

    2. What should be done:

      • Actively participate in WIPO, WTO, and G20 discussions on AI and IP.

      • Consider bilateral treaties or MoUs on AI-IP enforcement with key partners like the EU, US, and Japan.

    3. How to implement:

      • Mandate the Ministry of External Affairs and DPIIT to include AI-IP harmonization in trade negotiations.

      • Launch a dedicated Indian delegation on AI-IP under India’s G20 tech task force.


  5. Support Judicial and Administrative Training

    1. Why it’s important:

      Judges, registrars, and IP examiners need specialized knowledge to fairly adjudicate and manage AI-related IP cases.

    2. What should be done:

      • Conduct regular training and certification for judges and IP officials on AI fundamentals and emerging tech trends.

      • Collaborate with law schools and think tanks to produce training modules.

    3. How to implement:

      • Allocate funding via the National Judicial Academy and IPR chairs in universities.

      • Include AI-IP modules in UPSC and judicial service curriculum.


Conclusion: A New Frontier for IP in India

India’s innovation economy is at a crossroads. The rise of AI calls for a recalibration of our legal infrastructure—one that protects creators, incentivizes innovation, and ensures legal clarity. As global trends show, the future belongs to nations that embrace this challenge with foresight and flexibility.

With timely reforms and thoughtful policymaking, India can emerge not just as a technology hub but as a global standard-setter in AI and intellectual property law.


Comments

bottom of page