As AI systems increasingly contribute to drug discovery, US law currently requires patents to name only human inventors, creating potential legal risks for biotech companies.
Key facts
- •Insilico Medicine credited its AI platform with discovering a pulmonary fibrosis drug but named five humans as inventors on the patent.
- •A 2022 Washington, DC appeals court ruling established that only human beings can be named as inventors under US law.
- •The US Patent and Trademark Office currently treats AI as a tool that does not require specific disclosure in patent applications.
- •Incorrectly listing inventors on a patent can lead to the patent being invalidated in court.
- •Legal experts argue that current laws may need to evolve as AI systems perform more of the creative work in scientific discovery.
Biotech company Insilico Medicine recently credited its generative AI platform with discovering a pulmonary fibrosis drug, yet listed five humans, including its CEO, as the inventors on the patent. This discrepancy highlights a conflict in US intellectual property law, which currently restricts patent inventorship to human beings. Courts have ruled that AI cannot be an inventor, forcing companies to navigate a legal landscape that struggles to define the role of AI in creative processes.
Legal Precedent and Human Requirement
The requirement for human inventors was solidified following a test case involving an AI named DABUS, which was proposed as the inventor of a new food container design. In 2022, a Washington, DC appeals court ruled that US statutes define an inventor as an "individual," which the court interpreted as a human being. Consequently, machines are ineligible for inventorship, regardless of their role in a discovery.
Shifting Patent Office Guidance
The US Patent and Trademark Office has altered its stance on AI involvement across different administrations. While the Biden administration provided guidance on determining when humans qualify as co-inventors alongside AI, the current approach under the Trump administration characterizes AI as a tool, similar to a calculator, without requiring disclosure of its use. Legal experts warn that failing to accurately list inventors could lead to future legal challenges, as incorrect inventorship is grounds for patent invalidation.
The Future of AI Innovation
As AI models take on more of the creative work in drug development, questions remain regarding how much human intervention is necessary to qualify for a patent. Insilico CEO Alex Zhavoronkov notes that human chemists currently remain involved in synthesizing and testing drugs. However, experts like Ryan Abbott of Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan suggest that as AI systems become more autonomous, the legal definition of an inventor will need to evolve to ensure intellectual property laws continue to promote scientific progress.
Advertisement
This article was independently rewritten by ManyPress editorial AI from reporting originally published by MIT Technology Review.
