Why Human Inventorship Still Matters in India

Abstract

The rise of Artificial Intelligence has created new challenges for patent law in India. Under the Patents Act, 1970, only human beings can be recognized as inventors. The Indian Patent Office rejected the DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) patent application in April 2026, confirming that Artificial Intelligence systems cannot be named as inventors. This blog examines the rules for Artificial Intelligence inventorship, the importance of contribution, potential ways these rules can be exploited, and practical steps to prevent misuse. This article examines the legal framework governing AI assisted inventorship in India, analyses the implications of the DABUS decision, and evaluates the safeguards necessary to preserve the integrity of the patent system while encouraging responsible innovation.

Artificial Intelligence tools can now produce outputs, including inventions in fields like drug discovery, materials science, and engineering. This raises a question: who owns the rights to an invention created with Artificial Intelligence involvement? Indian law requires an inventor. The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence makes it harder to determine the exact level of human input needed. The DABUS case provides guidance on this issue. Understanding these rules is essential for researchers and innovators working with Artificial Intelligence in India.

Legal Framework for Inventorship in India

Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 defines an invention, while Section 6 specifies that a patent application must be filed by the inventor or their assignee. The law treats the inventor as a being. “Artificial Intelligence systems are not recognised as legal persons under the Patents Act, 1970.

In April 2026, the Indian Patent Office rejected application No. 202017019068, Which named the Artificial Intelligence system DABUS as the inventor for a food container invention. The Controller held that only human beings can be listed as inventors under Sections 2, 6, 7, and 10 of the Act. This decision aligns India with jurisdictions like the United States and the United Kingdom.

The 2025 Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions further support patenting of Artificial Intelligence-assisted inventions. These guidelines require inventions to show an “effect” beyond abstract algorithms. Human contribution remains central for inventorship.

The Role of Human Contribution

For an invention to receive a patent at one human being must make a significant contribution to its conception. Simply prompting an Artificial Intelligence tool or using its output without input may not suffice. Researchers must document their role in problem definition, data selection, model training result interpretation, and refinement. This ensures the invention meets novelty, obviousness, and industrial applicability requirements.

Potential Exploitation of Generative Artificial Intelligence Inventorship Rules

The requirement for inventors creates risks of exploitation:

• Exaggerated

Human Claims: Teams might name a person as an inventor even when Artificial Intelligence did most of the work. This could lead to patents that get challenged later during litigation or revocation proceedings.

• Ownership

Disputes: In projects involving universities, startups and companies unclear records of input can spark conflicts over who owns the patent rights.

• Over-Reliance

On Trade Secrets: Some innovators may avoid patenting and keep Artificial Intelligence-generated inventions as secrets, reducing knowledge sharing in fields like pharma and green tech.

• Strategic

Filing by Big Players: Large corporations with Artificial Intelligence could file applications with minimal human tweaks, flooding the system and creating barriers for smaller players.

Such practices undermine the purpose of the patent system, which rewards innovation while promoting public disclosure.

Prevention Strategies

To address these risks, researchers and institutions should adopt practices:

• Detailed Documentation: Maintain logs of all contributions, including prompts given to Artificial Intelligence, modifications made to outputs and decisions taken at each stage. Timestamped records and version histories help during examination or opposition.
• Clear Agreements: Use contracts in projects to define roles, ownership and inventorship upfront. This is especially important in Artificial Intelligence-driven drug discovery projects in India.
• Internal Review Processes: Organizations should implement checks to verify involvement before filing. Training on the 2025 Guidelines can help teams draft claims.
• Policy Advocacy: Student researchers can support updates to the Patents Act that provide guidance on Artificial Intelligence-assisted inventions without diluting centric rules. Proper disclosure requirements in patent applications reduce the chance of invalidation.

Conclusion
The DABUS decision reaffirms India’s commitment to the principle that patent rights arise from human ingenuity rather than autonomous machine activity. Although Artificial Intelligence is transforming the innovation landscape by accelerating research and inventive processes, it remains a tool rather than a legal inventor under the Patents Act, 1970. As AI technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the challenge for Indian patent law will not be whether to recognise machines as inventors, but how to define and evaluate meaningful human contribution in AI assisted inventions. Clear documentation, institutional accountability, and measured legislative reform will be essential to maintaining the credibility of the patent system while ensuring that innovation continues to flourish within a legally certain framework. 

References

SpicyIP, The Inventor is still Human: Indian Patent Office’s DABUS Refusal (21 April 2026) https://spicyip.com/2026/04/the-inventor-is-still-human-indian-patent-offices-dabus-refusal.html

Lexology, India Rejects AI as Inventor: Landmark DABUS Patent Decision (14 May 2026) https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=edda1f8a-7538-42f6-8620-ce899dd07e4d

BananaIP, AI Inventorship and the DABUS Refusal in India: Patent Opponent’s Submissions in the Patent Office Order (20 April 2026). https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/ai-inventorship-dabus-refusal-india-opponents-submissions/

Raghavender, G.R., Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) Machine be Granted Inventorship in India? Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (11 May 2023). https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/1268 (pdf)

Indian Patent Office, CRI Guidelines 2025 https://ipindia.gov.in/frontend/pdf/patents/guidelines/GUIDELINES%20FOR%20EXAMINATION%20OF%20COMPUTER%20RELATED%20INVENTIONS%20(CRIs)%20-%202025.pdf

Google Patents, Device and method for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/94/bb/ce/f30bde27ce2873/US20150379394A1.pdf

The Patents Act, 1970