IPR
Topic 133 IP AI ML Future
Topic 133 — IP and AI / Machine Learning Future
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) and MACHINE LEARNING (ML) present unprecedented IP challenges. The intersection raises fundamental questions: Can AI be inventor or author? How is AI training data treated under copyright? How does AI-generated content fit existing IP frameworks? What ethical and legal frameworks govern? The Indian framework is rapidly evolving. Foundational position: HUMAN AUTHORSHIP/INVENTORSHIP REQUIRED. Section 6 Patents Act + Section 13 Copyright Act presume human creators. Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office (Del HC 2025) — 8-week directive on AI authorship reconsideration; aligns with global rejection (US Thaler v. Vidal 2022; UK Thaler v. Comptroller-General 2023). "Raghav" 2020-2021 reversal — Indian Copyright Office initially registered AI co-authorship; reversed 2021. ANI Media v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024) is the watershed pending case — judgment reserved 2025 — addressing AI training on copyrighted material. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life (2023) — landmark personality rights case against generative AI. CRI GUIDELINES 2025 (29 July 2025) modernise framework for software/AI patents — three-step test: identify invention; identify technical contribution; assess Section 3(k) exclusion. Recent case progression: Microsoft (2023:DHC:3342); OpenTV (2023:DHC:3305) absolute business method bar; Priya Randolph (Madras HC 2023) blockchain framework; Ab Initio (2024:DHC:5708) blockchain technical effect; Ferid Allani (2019:DHC:6944) technical effect test. International parallels: US Authors Guild v. OpenAI; Bartz v. Anthropic; UK Getty Images v. Stability AI; EU AI Act; OECD AI Principles. India's AI APPROACH: National AI Strategy + AI for All initiative; National Data Governance Framework Policy 2022; DPDP Act 2023 + AI considerations; concerns about data privacy + bias + accountability. The 2024 WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources + Traditional Knowledge intersects with AI training. This topic walks through every aspect of IP-AI intersection — authorship, training data, generated content, frameworks, and emerging considerations.
1. AI/ML Foundational IP Issues
A. The Five Major Issues
1 AUTHOR AI authorship/inventorship | 2 TRAINING training data + copyright | 3 OUTPUT AI-generated content |
4 PERSONALITY AI impersonation rights | 5 PATENT AI/ML patent eligibility |
2. AI Authorship and Inventorship
A. Indian Framework — Human Required
✅ Indian Framework — Human Authorship/Inventorship Section 6 Patents Act 1970: · Application by inventor. · Inventor as person. · No mention of AI or machine. Section 13 Copyright Act 1957: · Authors of works. · Default human authorship. · "Raghav" 2021 reversal — AI cannot be co-author. INDIAN POSITION: · Human authorship/inventorship required. · AI as tool, not creator. · Aligns with US/UK rejection. EXCEPTION POSSIBILITIES: · Human-AI collaboration (with human as creator). · Human direction of AI tools. · Human originality + AI assistance. |
B. Stephen Thaler Cases — Global Rejection
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022) Background — Thaler's "DABUS" AI system invented two patentable inventions; sought patent listing AI as inventor. Holding — US Federal Circuit (5 August 2022): Patent Act requires HUMAN INVENTOR. AI cannot be inventor. Significance — Foundational US AI inventorship rejection. |
📖 Thaler v. Comptroller-General, [2023] UKSC 49 (UK Supreme Court 20 December 2023) Facts — Thaler sought UK patent inventorship for "DABUS" AI. Holding — UK Supreme Court: AI cannot be inventor under UK law. Significance — UK Supreme Court rejection. Aligns with US position. |
📖 Stephen Thaler v. Copyright Office, 2025 (Del HC) Background — Thaler challenged Indian rejection of AI authorship. Holding — Delhi HC (2025): 8-week directive on AI authorship reconsideration. Significance — Indian framework alignment with US/UK rejection. Section 6 Patents Act requires HUMAN INVENTOR. |
📖 "Raghav" Painting Case, 2020-2021 Reversal Background — In 2020, Indian Copyright Office initially registered "Raghav" — claimed AI-generated artwork — listing AI co-author. Reversal — 2021: Copyright Office revised position; AI cannot be co-author. Significance — Indian framework requires human authorship; aligns with Stephen Thaler 2025. |
3. AI Training Data and Copyright
A. The Watershed Pending Case
📖 ANI Media (P) Ltd. v. OpenAI Inc., CS(COMM) 1028/2024 (Del HC) Background — ANI sued OpenAI for using copyrighted news content to train ChatGPT. Status — Judgment RESERVED 2025. Issues — Multiple intersections: · Copyright: AI training as infringement (Section 14 reproduction). · Privacy: Training data contains personal data (DPDP Act 2023). · Free speech: Section 52 fair dealing analysis. · Cross-border jurisdiction: US-based servers, Indian rights. Significance — PENDING DECISION will shape: · AI training framework in India. · Section 52 fair dealing for AI. · Personal data in training corpus. · Cross-border IP enforcement. · Foundation for future AI cases. |
B. International Parallels
Case | Country | Issue |
|---|---|---|
Authors Guild v. OpenAI | US | Authors of books vs. ChatGPT training. |
Bartz v. Anthropic | US | Authors vs. Claude training. |
Getty Images v. Stability AI | UK | Stock photos vs. Stable Diffusion. |
New York Times v. OpenAI | US | News articles vs. ChatGPT. |
ANI v. OpenAI | India | News articles vs. ChatGPT (pending). |
C. Indian Framework
- Section 14 Copyright Act — exclusive rights of reproduction.
- Section 52 — fair dealing exceptions.
- No specific AI training exception in current Indian law.
- Section 52(1)(a) — research, criticism, review (limited applicability).
- Section 79 IT Act — intermediary safe harbour considerations.
- DPDP Act 2023 — personal data in training.
4. AI-Generated Content
A. Copyright Status
- Currently UNCERTAIN under Indian framework.
- "Raghav" 2021 reversal — AI cannot be co-author.
- Stephen Thaler 2025 — pending Indian framework.
- Possible alternatives: - Human-AI collaboration (human author). - No copyright for purely AI-generated. - Limited copyright for human direction.
B. Patent Status
- CRI Guidelines 2025 — technical effect framework applies.
- Section 3(k) — software/AI restrictions.
- Human inventor requirement.
- AI as tool, not inventor.
C. Trademark Status
- AI-generated logos/branding can be registered.
- Use + commercial application required.
- Trademark holder typically natural/legal person.
- AI as tool framework.
5. AI Personality Rights
📖 Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 Background — Anil Kapoor sought protection against misuse of his name, image, likeness — including by generative AI tools — without authorization. Holding — Delhi HC: Personality rights protected under Article 21 + trademark + passing off framework. Specific protection against AI-generated impersonation. Significance — LANDMARK personality rights case in AI era: · Modern AI-era personality protection. · Article 21 + trademark + passing off integration. · Bollywood + entertainment industry implications. · Foundation for AI personality rights framework. |
A. Personality Rights Framework
- Article 21 — right to dignity + privacy.
- Trademark protection for celebrities.
- Passing off framework.
- Right of publicity recognition.
- Specific AI impersonation protection.
B. Emerging Issues
- Deepfake protection.
- AI voice cloning.
- AI image generation.
- Digital twin/replica.
- Cross-border jurisdiction.
6. AI Patent Framework
A. CRI Guidelines 2025 — Modern Framework
✅ Computer-Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) Three-Step Test: 1. Identify the invention. 2. Identify the technical contribution. 3. Assess Section 3(k) exclusion. Specifically Addresses: · AI-related inventions. · Machine learning algorithms. · IoT applications. · Cloud computing. · Blockchain technology. Key Position: · Pure software (computer programs per se) — Section 3(k) excluded. · Software with technical effect — patentable. · Hardware-software combinations — patentable. · Network architecture innovations — patentable. · Aligned with Ferid Allani technical effect test. May 2025 Expert Panel + DPIIT 2024 Position contributed. |
B. Recent AI Patent Cases
Case | Citation | Significance |
|---|---|---|
Ferid Allani v. UoI | 2019:DHC:6944 | TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST established. |
Microsoft v. Asst. Controller | 2023:DHC:3342 | Software patent framework reaffirmed. |
OpenTV v. Controller | 2023:DHC:3305 | Absolute bar on business methods. |
Priya Randolph v. Deputy Controller | 2023 (Madras HC) | Blockchain patentability. |
Ab Initio v. Asst. Controller | 2024:DHC:5708 | Blockchain technical effect. |
Comviva Technologies v. Asst. Controller | 2024 | Fintech IP framework. |
Google v. Controller | 2 April 2024 | Modern CRI application. |
Blackberry v. Controller | 2024:DHC:6571 | Mobile communications. |
7. International AI/IP Frameworks
A. EU AI Act 2024
- Comprehensive EU AI regulation.
- Risk-based framework.
- Specific provisions for general purpose AI.
- Training data transparency.
- Affects EU + global AI development.
B. OECD AI Principles
- Inclusive growth.
- Sustainable development.
- Well-being.
- Robustness, security, safety.
- Accountability.
- India endorsed.
C. UNESCO AI Recommendation
- Adopted November 2021.
- Comprehensive AI ethics framework.
- IP considerations.
- Human rights focus.
D. WIPO IP and AI Conversation
- Ongoing dialogue.
- IP and AI Working Group.
- Recent developments.
- Best practices sharing.
8. India's AI Strategy
A. National AI Strategy 2018
- NITI Aayog flagship.
- AI for All initiative.
- Focus areas: healthcare, agriculture, education, smart cities, smart mobility.
B. Recent Indian AI Initiatives
- National Data Governance Framework Policy 2022.
- IndiaAI Mission 2024.
- National Centre for AI.
- Centres of Excellence.
- AI Innovation Initiative 2025.
C. AI Regulation Considerations
- Risk-based framework consideration.
- DPDP Act 2023 integration.
- IT Rules 2021 + AI considerations.
- Sector-specific regulations.
- IP framework integration.
9. Strategic Considerations
✅ For AI developers and businesses — eight points For training data, monitor ANI v. OpenAI evolution. For AI-generated content, document human contribution. For AI patents, leverage CRI Guidelines 2025 technical effect. For trademarks, register AI-generated branding through human applicants. For personality rights, comply with Anil Kapoor 2023 framework. For DPDP compliance, integrate training data privacy. For international scope, monitor EU AI Act + global frameworks. For litigation, prepare for cross-border issues. |
✅ For AI users and consumers — six points For AI-generated content, recognize ownership uncertainties. For personality rights, exercise caution with AI tools. For copyrighted material, respect AI training restrictions. For privacy, leverage DPDP Act 2023 protections. For copyright, attribute when human-AI collaboration occurs. For commercial use, ensure proper licensing. |
10. Memory Aid — Quick Recall
✅ Quick Recall — IP and AI/ML Future Indian framework: Human authorship/inventorship REQUIRED. Section 6 Patents Act + Section 13 Copyright Act presume human creators. Stephen Thaler v. Vidal (US 2022; UK 2023; India Del HC 2025) — globally rejected. "Raghav" 2020-2021 reversal — AI cannot be co-author. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life (2023) — personality rights against generative AI. ANI v. OpenAI (CS(COMM) 1028/2024) — judgment reserved 2025. CRI Guidelines 2025 (29 July 2025) — three-step test. Ferid Allani 2019 — TECHNICAL EFFECT TEST for software patents. OpenTV 2023 — absolute bar on business methods. Priya Randolph 2023 — blockchain patentability. EU AI Act 2024 — comprehensive AI regulation. OECD AI Principles + UNESCO Recommendation. IndiaAI Mission 2024. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 133
|