AI-assisted invention: Should artificial intelligence systems be given intellectual property rights?

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• August 9, 2022

Insight summary

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how we create and claim new inventions, sparking debates on whether AI should have intellectual property rights. These discussions raise questions about AI's role as an inventor and the need to redefine traditional patent systems in light of AI's growing capabilities. This shift in invention and ownership is influencing everything, from corporate culture to government policy, and reshaping the future of work and creativity.

AI-assisted invention context

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems continue to mature, more inventions are being generated with their involvement. This innovation trend has led to a debate about whether or not AI-assisted creations should be given intellectual property (IP) rights.

There are concerns that under the current patent system, third parties can indicate themselves as inventors of technologies generated by AI systems and that granting such rights might be misleading. Proposals have been made regarding how the patent system should be adjusted in light of the rapid developments in AI and machine learning (ML), but the details remain largely undefined. First, there’s an ongoing debate on what constitutes an ‘AI-generated’ invention and how computer autonomy differs from AI-assisted innovation. Some technology experts believe it’s too soon to grant AI the full-blown patent rights of an inventor as algorithms are still largely dependent on humans. 

Some commonly used examples of AI-assisted inventions include the Oral-B toothbrush and other products of the ‘Creativity Machine’ designed by computer scientist Stephen Thaler, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) antenna, genetic programming achievements, and AI applications in drug discovery and development. Perhaps the most recent example of the AI invention patent debate is Thaler’s Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) AI inventor system, which he appealed to the US Court of Appeals in June 2022. He claimed that the technology should be credited for creating a beverage container using fractal geometry. However, the three-judge panel was still reluctant to consider an AI system as an inventor.

Disruptive impact

The UK government released in 2021 its second consultation regarding copyright regulations on AI creations. The UK already has laws to provide copyright protection of 50 years for humans who collaborate with computers for inventions. However, some critics feel that giving AI systems the same copyright protection as humans is somewhat extreme. This development shows the hesitance and lack of clear guidance in this niche of IP law. One perspective posits that AI systems can generate innovative works and inventions independently, and it may be difficult to pinpoint the person who actually deserves credit for these creations. However, others argue that AI systems simply act as tools or machines that rely on humans to input data and design parameters, and that they should not be granted IP rights.

In addition, giving copyrights to AI is against one of the fundamental principles of European IP law: an author or creator of a protectable work must be a human. This can be seen throughout European copyright, patent, and trademark law, from the need for “skill and labor” or “intellectual creation” in a copyright context to the definition of “inventor” under the European Patent Convention. It all stems back to why IP law was created in the first place: to safeguard human creativity. If this rule were changed, it would have far-reaching implications for all IP laws across Europe. 

This debate remains firmly in murky waters. One side argues that AI works should be exempt from IP protection because they have not received a minimum level of human input. Alternatively, refusing IP protection to AI-generated works could disincentivize people from innovating using AI tools. In the scientific context, exempting AI-generated inventions from patent protection could undermine the aims of the patent system altogether.

Implications of AI-assisted invention

Wider implications of AI-assisted invention may include: 

• AI-driven inventions are sparking worldwide discussions on defining AI contributions, leading to a possible shift in intellectual property rights allocation towards AI creators.


• The trend of crediting AI-generated inventions to specific teams or companies intensifying, fostering a new corporate culture around AI collaboration and ownership.


• A growing movement to let AI independently create innovations without strict adherence to existing copyright laws, potentially redefining the boundaries of creativity.


• Collaborative efforts between scientists and AI systems becoming more common, blending human ingenuity with AI's computational power to accelerate the pace of discovery.


• Training programs for scientists and technologists in AI-assisted innovation expanding, aiming to speed up the development and application of new technologies.


• The use of AI in crafting government policies increasing, enabling more data-driven and efficient decision-making processes.


• Employment landscapes being transformed as AI-driven automation becomes more prevalent, requiring a workforce skilled in AI collaboration and adaptation.

Questions to consider

• Do you think AI should be given inventor rights?


• How might AI improve the research and development practices in your company or industry?