The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Challenges to the Traditional Intellectual Property Rights Law

Artificial Intelligence and the Changing Nature of Creativity

As the world transitions into an era of advanced technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved beyond performing simple tasks such as text analysis, formulating responses, or generating basic outputs. Modern AI systems are now capable of performing self-autonomous functions and engaging in highly complex tasks with minimal or no human intervention. Artificial intelligence refers to the simulation of human-like abilities, including problem-solving and critical thinking.

With the pragmatic evolution of this disruptive technology, creativity—once considered an exclusive trait of the human race—has entered the technological domain. This development complicates the application of intellectual property rights (IPR) laws and necessitates a fundamental shift in the existing legal framework.

Read more: Is Artificial Intelligence a Boon or a Bane in the Legal Profession?

Overview of Intellectual Property Rights in India

The intellectual property rights framework in India primarily aims to protect creations of the human mind, including literary works, inventions, designs, symbols, and confidential information. These protections are granted through various legal mechanisms such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, and designs.

Copyright refers to an author’s original literary, artistic, musical, or dramatic work and is governed by the Copyright Act, 1957. It grants exclusive rights over reproduction, duplication, and circulation. The Patents Act, 1970 protects inventions by granting inventors exclusive rights for a limited duration. Trademarks, governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protect brand identifiers such as names, logos, symbols, and slogans. Visual and aesthetic features are safeguarded under the Designs Act, 2000.

Limitations of the Existing Legal Framework

The current legal framework is limited in scope as it recognizes only natural persons as authors or inventors and vests rights either in individuals or legal entities. The non-recognition of AI, particularly in an era dominated by rapid technological growth, creates a significant gap between societal demands and the outdated legislative framework.

This gap becomes evident when existing laws fail to adapt to the evolving realities of technology-driven creativity and innovation.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law

Artificial intelligence is no longer confined to scientists or professionals; it is widely used by the general public to create art, literature, images, and music. Under Indian law, copyright protection is granted only to humans, with originality being a key requirement.

Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines an author as a person who causes the work to be created, thereby making the law human-centric. As a result, purely autonomous AI-generated works without meaningful human involvement fall outside the scope of copyright protection.

A critical question arises as to whether works created using AI satisfy the requirement of originality, since they are products of simulated intelligence rather than the human mind. Through judicial interpretation and practice, it has become settled that where a human initiates and controls the creative process using AI, that individual may be regarded as the author and can claim copyright protection.

Patent Law Challenges and AI-Generated Inventions

The primary challenges in the patent regime include issues of authorization, ownership, jurisdiction, and enforcement. Authorship and ownership remain grey areas under the Patents Act, 1970, which recognizes only natural persons as inventors.

Patent protection requires compliance with criteria such as novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. Under Indian law, only humans may apply for patent protection, thereby excluding artificial intelligence from eligibility. Consequently, inventions generated through AI are considered to belong to the individual directing the AI rather than the AI itself.

Section 3(k) of the Patents Act and Computer-Related Inventions

Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970 lists subject matter that does not qualify as an invention. Section 3(k) specifically excludes mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes per se, and algorithms from patentability.

To address technological advancements, the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM) issued the Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs), 2025. These guidelines aim to align Indian patent examination with international standards while improving clarity and consistency.

The updated guidelines contain a detailed chapter on inventions involving emerging technologies such as blockchain, cloud computing, quantum computing, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL). In addition to 20 examples in the main text, an annexure provides 40 illustrative examples outlining permissible and prohibited claims under Section 3(k).

AI-Generated Trademarks and Brand Identity

Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, trademarks used in business and professions—including symbols, logos, and slogans—are protected. However, the legal status of trademarks generated by artificial intelligence remains uncertain.

With the increasing use of AI in designing logos and brand identities, trademark and copyright laws still require registration in the name of a natural person to fall within the protective legal framework.

Policy Developments and the Way Forward

Indian authorities have recognized the need to reassess intellectual property laws in light of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. Policy discussions have emphasized exploring methods to integrate AI-generated works into patent, trademark, and copyright systems.

India’s participation in international forums such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reflects its effort to balance domestic policy autonomy with global legal trends. Recent academic studies and law review articles support clearer statutory guidance on ownership and inventorship of AI-assisted outputs, alongside calibrated protection that encourages innovation without granting rights to non-person entities.

This necessitates a transition from the existing framework towards a more inclusive and technologically responsive intellectual property regime.

Article Written by
Damita
BA LLB Hons, 4th Year
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Navi Mumbai