Given that AI systems like ChatGPT, Claude, and dedicated large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist humans in research, coding, and product design, a key legal question arises: Can patent law recognise ChatGPT as an inventor?
It is significant due to the fact that inventorship plays an important role in determining who receives credit for an invention. It is also significant from the point of view of patent rights.
AI innovation poses a legal problem, as traditional patent laws provide recognition to human beings as inventors, whereas Generative AI is capable of helping humans invent something without any intention or legal personality.
As the use of AI is becoming more prominent in India, therefore, it becomes highly important to understand how AI invention fits in the Indian context of patents.
Under the current Indian intellectual property framework, no one can name ChatGPT as an inventor on a patent. While researchers can use AI as a tool to develop innovations, the law strictly reserves inventorship for human beings.
AI Inventorship under the Indian Patents Act, 1970
AI inventorship is about whether artificial intelligence could be considered an inventor of a product, a process, or a technical idea under the law.
The traditional role of an inventor is to spot the problem and to create a solution to that problem. An inventor may work alone or together with researchers.
In this case, AI technologies offer an alternative approach, which involves the analysis of great volumes of data, recognition of certain patterns, and proposing designs and solutions. At times, the results could greatly affect the invention process.
For instance, a researcher can apply ChatGPT to try some alternatives in designing a water filtration system.
Understanding Indian Patent Law and AI Inventorship
The Indian Patents Act, 1970 is the law that covers patent protection in India. The Indian Patents Act sets out the rules for what’s patentable, the right to file a patent, and the rights that come after a patent is granted. Even though the Indian Patents Act does not have a section on AI inventorship, many parts of the law still explain the legal position.
1. Section 2(1)(y): True and First Inventor
Section 2(1)(y) defines the expression “true and first inventor” and excludes certain persons from that definition.
The provision is part of the framework for identifying the inventor. However, the provision does not expressly state that an AI system can qualify as an inventor. Applicants should carefully identify the contribution to an AI-assisted invention and avoid treating an AI tool as a legally recognised inventor under the existing framework.
2. Section 6: Who Can Apply for a Patent?
Section 6 suggests that a person who apply for a patent in India. These include various categories such as the true and first inventor, an assignee and the legal representative of the deceased person who is entitled to apply.
The provision distinguishes inventorship from the right to apply. For example, an inventor may assign the relevant rights to a company, which can then apply for a patent if the legal requirements are satisfied.
However, assigning rights does not make the company the original inventor. Similarly, using ChatGPT does not automatically make the AI system an inventor or transfer patent rights to the person who operates it.
3. Section 3: Inventions That Are Not Patentable
Section 3 lists subject matter that Indian patent law does not treat as patentable inventions.
This section matters when applicants use AI to generate technical ideas. An AI-generated output must still satisfy the applicable patentability requirements and must not fall within an exclusion under Section 3.
For example, a mathematical method or an abstract idea does not become patentable merely because an AI system generated it. Likewise, a business concept or a computer program per se may face exclusions under the Act.
Applicants must therefore examine the actual technical contribution of the proposed invention rather than relying only on the novelty of the AI-generated output.
4. Section 10: Contents of a Patent Specification
Section 10 describes the provisions for the content of a patent specification. It requires the inventor to describe the invention and its method of operation.
When using AI technology during development, the applicant must describe the invention and comply with statutory provisions in the patent specification.
It is important for the inventor to have technical understanding of the solution and to make sure that the specification describes its characteristics correctly.
As things stand, there is no provision in Indian patent law that explicitly recognises an AI system as the owner of the patent itself. When using AI technology during development, the applicant must describe the invention and comply with statutory provisions in the patent specification.
Nevertheless, an AI system cannot just say that it owns the patent for coming up with an idea or contributing to a technical solution. There is no explicit provision in law that makes provision for an AI system to own a patent on its own.
This is crucial for R&D companies using generative AI, as they must clarify who contributed to the invention and who owns the rights.
Also, it is necessary to examine the relevant contract terms of the applicants’ AI systems. Such terms may govern the use of output of the AI system and confidentiality. However, having contractual permissions to use AI-generated output does not mean that the output is patentable.
Generative AI can aid inventing by suggesting alternative designs and possibilities. However, contribution to the technical aspects of invention does not necessarily equate to inventorship.
In India, applicants must not list generative AI tools like ChatGPT as co-inventors.
Is an AI-Assisted Invention Patentable in India?
Yes, inventions created by use of AI can be patented in India. Yet, the use of AI itself cannot assure or deny the possibility of patenting.
The proposed invention should comply with the necessary criteria according to the Indian Patents Act of 1970.
1. Novelty
Section 2(1)(l) defines a “new invention” by reference to novelty and prior publication or use, among other statutory conditions. An invention must meet the applicable novelty requirements. An applicant cannot rely solely on the fact that ChatGPT generated an idea.
For example, if an AI tool suggests a design that already appears in publicly available technical documents, the design may fail the novelty requirement.
Therefore, applicants should conduct appropriate prior-art searches before filing a patent application.
2. Inventive Step
Under Section 2(1)(ja), an “inventive step” means that the invention involves some technical advance or economic significance, or both, and is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The AI-enabled invention must meet the above criteria as per law. An AI system’s suggestion to make a small change to an existing product will not automatically qualify it for patent protection.
We recommend that applicants describe the technical advancement and determine whether the invention meets the inventive step criteria.
3. Industrial Applicability
Section 2(1)(ac) defines “capable of industrial application” as an invention that can be made or used in an industry. The invention must satisfy this requirement. An AI-generated concept that remains purely speculative may not meet it. By contrast, an AI-assisted manufacturing process or technical device may qualify if it meets industrial applicability and all other legal requirements.
Conclusion
AI is having a major impact on innovation, research, and product development processes. However, with its rapid advancement, many questions emerge regarding issues of inventorship and IP rights. Currently, with the help of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, ChatGPT cannot be regarded as an inventor per se. There are no legal provisions which allow recognizing AI systems as inventors and granting patent rights to them directly.
However, this does not prevent people from securing patents for inventions made with the help of AI. Inventors must still follow standard patent rules: the invention must be new, creative, and capable of industrial application. Those inventions must follow the rules for patents. They must be new, creative, and able to be used in industry. Allowed to be patented. The person applying must also meet rules about being the inventor having the right to apply, and sharing all the information needed.
That’s why, in order to receive patents for inventions made with the help of AI, inventors and companies should document the human contribution, check information generated by AI systems, and make notes about the process of invention creation. They also should check their ownership structure if needed. With the further technological advancements in AI, India might need legal regulations regarding AI-generated inventions. But until that happens, the distinction between AI involvement in the invention process and inventorship is extremely important. For any kind of guidance, please contact Intellect Bastion LLP!
FAQs
1. Can ChatGPT or any generative AI be listed as a sole inventor on an Indian patent application?
No. Present Indian patent laws do not recognise AI systems like ChatGPT as inventors. Section 6 of the Patents Act, 1970 provides the persons who are eligible to file for patents, which include the true and first inventor, as well as the assignee. The 2025 Computer-Related Inventions Guidelines of the Indian Patent Office clearly demarcate between the AI-generated invention and the AI-assisted invention.
2. Does the Indian Patents Act, 1970 legally ecognise non-human entities as inventors?
In fact, there is no explicit inclusion in the Act of AI inventions as the inventor. Section 6 talks about either the true and first inventor, or an assignee or the legal representative of the deceased inventor. While the Act uses the word “person” in its provisions, no provision permits recognizing an AI system as an inventor.
