Ipr In AI-Assisted Genomic Research Robots Ip.
1. What Are AI-Assisted Genomic Research Robots?
These systems combine:
Robotics – automated lab robots (pipetting, sequencing, CRISPR editing)
Artificial Intelligence – ML/DL models for pattern recognition, mutation prediction, drug–gene interaction
Genomics – DNA/RNA sequencing, gene expression analysis, synthetic biology
They can:
Discover gene sequences
Predict disease markers
Design drugs or genetic edits
Optimize lab experiments autonomously
This raises complex IPR questions because:
Who is the “inventor” when AI designs a gene sequence?
Can naturally occurring DNA be patented if AI “discovers” it?
Who owns datasets used to train genomic AI?
Is software + biological output protected together or separately?
2. Key IPR Areas Involved
(A) Patent Law
Covers:
AI algorithms
Robotic lab processes
Engineered genetic sequences
Diagnostic methods
(B) Copyright Law
Covers:
Software code
Databases (limited protection)
AI-generated outputs (contentious)
(C) Trade Secrets
Covers:
Proprietary genomic datasets
AI training methods
Lab protocols
(D) Data Protection & Ethics (indirect impact)
Human genomic data raises consent and ownership issues affecting IP enforceability.
3. Core Legal Problems
Inventorship – AI is not a legal person
Patent eligibility – genes, algorithms, and natural phenomena
Ownership – developer vs user vs institution
Obviousness – AI accelerates “routine” discovery
Disclosure – how much of AI logic must be revealed?
Now, let’s get into case laws 👇
4. Detailed Case Laws Relevant to AI-Assisted Genomic Research
Case 1: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (US Supreme Court, 2013)
Facts
Myriad Genetics identified BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes linked to breast cancer.
They patented:
Isolated DNA sequences
Diagnostic methods
Researchers argued genes are products of nature.
Issue
Can isolated human genes be patented?
Held
Naturally occurring DNA is NOT patentable
cDNA (synthetic DNA) IS patentable
Reasoning
Discovery ≠ invention
Merely isolating genes does not create something new
But human-made genetic constructs qualify
Relevance to AI Genomics
If AI “discovers” a gene → no patent
If AI creates/modifies a synthetic sequence → potentially patentable
AI does not change the nature vs invention rule
👉 Key takeaway: AI discovery of natural genes ≠ IP protection
Case 2: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (US Supreme Court, 1980)
Facts
Scientist created a genetically modified bacterium to break down oil.
Patent office rejected it as “living organism”.
Issue
Are man-made life forms patentable?
Held
YES — “Anything under the sun made by man” is patentable.
Reasoning
The organism was not naturally occurring
It involved human ingenuity
Relevance to AI Genomic Robots
If AI designs a novel microorganism or gene-editing pathway, it may be patentable
Focus is on human control and intention, not who (human vs AI) did the calculations
👉 Foundation case for biotech patents involving AI
Case 3: DABUS Patent Applications (US, UK, EPO, Australia)
Facts
An AI system named DABUS generated inventions.
Applicant listed AI as the inventor.
Applications filed globally.
Issue
Can AI be an inventor?
Held (US, UK, EPO)
NO — inventor must be a natural person
(Australia initially said yes, later reversed)
Reasoning
Patent statutes use terms like “person”, “mental conception”
AI lacks legal personality and rights
Relevance to AI Genomics
If a genomic robot autonomously invents:
A new gene therapy
A diagnostic biomarker
The patent must name a human:
Programmer
Research director
System owner
👉 Critical limitation for AI-generated genomic inventions
Case 4: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus (US Supreme Court, 2012)
Facts
Patent involved measuring drug metabolite levels to adjust dosage.
Claimed method linked biological data to treatment.
Issue
Are diagnostic methods patentable?
Held
NO — claims were laws of nature + routine steps.
Reasoning
Correlation between metabolite levels and efficacy is natural law
Adding “well-known” steps doesn’t make it inventive
Relevance to AI Genomics
AI predicting disease risk based on gene correlations may be unpatentable
Must show:
Technical innovation
Non-conventional process
👉 Many AI-based genomic diagnostics fail this test.
Case 5: Alice Corp v. CLS Bank (US Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts
Software-based financial invention.
Questioned software patent eligibility.
Issue
Are abstract ideas implemented on computers patentable?
Held
NO, unless there is an inventive concept.
Two-Step Test (Alice Test)
Is it an abstract idea?
If yes, does it add something significantly more?
Relevance to AI Genomic Robots
AI algorithms for gene analysis = abstract ideas
Patent must claim:
A specific technical improvement
Integration with robotic lab systems
👉 Many AI genomics patents are rejected under Alice.
Case 6: Harvard College v. Canada (OncoMouse Case)
Facts
Harvard developed a genetically engineered mouse for cancer research.
Patent sought over the animal itself.
Held
Canada rejected patent on higher life forms
Allowed process and gene claims only
Relevance
Jurisdictional differences matter
AI-designed organisms may be protected differently across countries
Case 7: Novartis v. Union of India (2013)
Facts
Patent sought for modified cancer drug (Glivec).
Claimed enhanced efficacy.
Issue
Evergreening and incremental innovation.
Held
No patent without significant therapeutic efficacy
Relevance to AI Genomics
AI-optimized gene therapies must show real enhancement
Mere optimization by AI ≠ patentability
5. Ownership Problems in AI-Genomic Research
Possible Claimants:
AI developer
Research institution
Funding agency
Data provider
Human supervisor
Most jurisdictions:
Require human inventorship
Ownership flows from employment or contract
👉 Strong contracts are essential.
6. Copyright & AI Genomics
Source code → protected
Genomic data → facts (not copyrightable)
AI-generated gene sequences → no clear copyright
Databases → limited protection
7. Trade Secrets as a Practical Solution
Many companies prefer:
Keeping AI models secret
Protecting genomic datasets confidentially
Avoiding disclosure requirements of patents
8. Conclusion
IPR in AI-assisted genomic research robots is shaped by traditional principles, not new AI-friendly laws.
Current Legal Position:
AI cannot be an inventor
Natural genes are not patentable
Synthetic genetic inventions may be protected
Diagnostic correlations face heavy scrutiny
Jurisdiction matters hugely
Future Outlook:
Law reform needed for AI inventorship
Clear rules for data ownership
Ethical constraints will influence IP rights
RELATED Blog
comments