Ipr In AI-Assisted Collaborative Robotics Ip.
IPR in AI-Assisted Collaborative Robotics (Cobots)
1. What are AI-Assisted Collaborative Robots?
Collaborative robots (cobots) are robots designed to work alongside humans, not in isolation. When combined with Artificial Intelligence, they can:
Learn from human behavior
Make autonomous decisions
Improve performance over time
Generate outputs such as designs, inventions, software, and processes
This raises complex Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) questions because:
Humans + AI + machines collaborate
Ownership and inventorship become unclear
Traditional IP laws assume human creators
2. Core IPR Issues in AI-Assisted Collaborative Robotics
(A) Patent Law Issues
Who is the inventor when AI contributes?
Can AI be an inventor?
Who owns inventions created by human-AI collaboration?
(B) Copyright Law Issues
Can AI-generated works be protected?
Who is the author — programmer, user, or AI?
Is human involvement sufficient for protection?
(C) Trade Secrets
Training data
Algorithms
Learning models
Robot behavior optimization processes
(D) Liability and Ownership
Employer vs employee
Manufacturer vs user
AI developer vs robot operator
3. Detailed Case Laws (More Than 5, Explained)
CASE 1: Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents (DABUS Case)
(UK Supreme Court, 2023)
Facts:
Dr. Stephen Thaler created an AI system called DABUS
DABUS autonomously generated two inventions:
A food container with fractal geometry
A flashing light device
Thaler filed patent applications naming DABUS as the inventor
Legal Issue:
Can an AI system be named as an inventor under patent law?
Court’s Reasoning:
Patent law requires an inventor to be a natural person
AI lacks:
Legal personality
Capacity to own or transfer rights
Ownership flows from inventorship, which AI cannot hold
Judgment:
AI cannot be an inventor
Patent application rejected
Relevance to Cobots:
If a collaborative robot autonomously invents something:
It cannot be named as inventor
Human involvement must be established
Strongly affects AI-driven robotic innovations
CASE 2: Thaler v. Vidal
(United States Supreme Court, 2023)
Facts:
Same inventor (Thaler)
Same AI system (DABUS)
Filed patents in the U.S. naming AI as inventor
Legal Issue:
Does the U.S. Patent Act allow non-human inventors?
Court’s Reasoning:
The Patent Act uses terms like:
“individual”
“whoever”
Interpreted as natural persons only
Legislative intent clearly human-centric
Judgment:
Only human beings can be inventors
AI-generated inventions without human inventorship are unpatentable
Impact on Collaborative Robotics:
Cobots must have human direction or contribution
Fully autonomous robotic inventions fall into a legal vacuum
CASE 3: Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd
(Federal Court of Australia, 2012)
Facts:
Acohs developed a safety data sheet using automated software
Ucorp copied it
Ucorp argued the document had no human author
Legal Issue:
Is a computer-generated work protected by copyright?
Court’s Reasoning:
Copyright requires:
Human intellectual effort
Human authorship
Merely pressing a button or using software ≠ authorship
Judgment:
No copyright protection
The work lacked a human author
Relevance to AI Cobots:
If a collaborative robot generates:
Manuals
Reports
Designs
Without sufficient human creativity → no copyright
CASE 4: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case)
(U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, 2018)
Facts:
A monkey took selfies using a photographer’s camera
PETA sued claiming the monkey owned copyright
Legal Issue:
Can a non-human entity own copyright?
Court’s Reasoning:
Copyright law protects human authors
Animals and non-humans have no standing
Judgment:
Copyright denied
Only humans can be authors
Application to Robotics:
Reinforces that:
Non-humans (including AI or robots)
Cannot own IP rights
AI output must be legally attributed to humans
CASE 5: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service
(U.S. Supreme Court, 1991)
Facts:
Feist copied telephone directory listings
Rural claimed copyright
Legal Issue:
What is the minimum requirement for copyright?
Court’s Reasoning:
Requires originality
Originality means:
Independent creation
Minimal creativity
Mere data compilation is not enough
Judgment:
No copyright
Lack of creativity
Importance for AI-Assisted Robotics:
AI-generated outputs that:
Merely process data
Follow algorithmic rules
May fail the creativity threshold
CASE 6: University of Southampton’s AI Inventor Decision (EPO DABUS Decision)
(European Patent Office, 2020)
Facts:
DABUS named as inventor
Filed in Europe
Legal Issue:
Whether AI can be an inventor under EPC
Reasoning:
Inventor must have:
Legal capacity
Name, surname, address
AI does not satisfy legal formalities
Decision:
Patent refused
Impact:
Confirms uniform global resistance to AI inventorship
Affects robotics companies operating internationally
4. Ownership Models in AI-Assisted Collaborative Robotics
(A) Human-Centered Model
Human operator or programmer owns IP
Most legally accepted model
(B) Employer Ownership
Works created during employment belong to employer
Common in robotics R&D labs
(C) Joint Inventorship
Multiple humans involved in training and guiding AI
Requires proof of intellectual contribution
5. Legal Challenges Ahead
No recognition of AI inventorship
Difficulty proving human contribution
Risk of:
Unprotected inventions
Trade secret leakage
Urgent need for:
AI-specific IP legislation
Hybrid inventorship frameworks
6. Conclusion
AI-assisted collaborative robotics challenge the foundations of IPR law. Courts worldwide consistently hold that:
Only humans can own IP
AI is treated as a tool, not a creator
Until laws evolve:
Human involvement must be documented
IP strategies must rely on:
Patents with human inventors
Trade secrets
Contractual ownership clauses
RELATED Blog
comments