AI And Inventorship In Patent Law: A Comparative Analysis Of India, Europe And The United States
- IJLLR Journal
- 3 hours ago
- 1 min read
Chandramani Bhaskar, ILS Law College, Pune
ABSTRACT
Patent law traditionally assumes that an invention can be attributed to a human mind. Artificial intelligence challenges that assumption when a system does more than assist research and is said to generate the technical solution itself. This article uses the DABUS litigation as a common factual reference point to compare the United States, the European patent system and India. It distinguishes AI-assisted invention, where a human remains responsible for inventive conception, from AI-generated invention, where conception is attributed to the machine. The comparison examines Thaler v Vidal, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's revised 2025 guidance, the EPO decisions in J 8/20, J 9/20 and T 0528/25, Germany's Federal Court of Justice decision in X ZB 5/22, and India's 2026 DABUS refusal. It argues that the jurisdictions converge on human inventorship but diverge on how AI involvement should be recorded and how inventive step and disclosure should respond to AI-enabled research. The article proposes a technology-neutral human-contribution standard, proportionate AI disclosure and an AI-aware approach to the skilled person.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Inventorship; Patent Law; DABUS; AI- Assisted Inventions; Inventive Step; Disclosure
