Ipr In AI-Assisted Robotic Healthcare Assistants.
IPR in AI-Assisted Robotic Healthcare Assistants
AI-assisted robotic healthcare assistants (RAHAs) are robots or systems that combine AI, robotics, and medical knowledge to assist healthcare professionals in:
Patient care and monitoring
Diagnosis support
Surgery assistance (robotic surgery)
Drug administration
Data analysis and predictive healthcare
These robots raise complex IPR issues, because their outputs may include medical inventions, treatment protocols, patient data analysis, or software algorithms.
1. Key Intellectual Property Issues
A. Patentability
If an AI-assisted robot creates a new drug, procedure, or device, who is the inventor?
Patents require human inventors in most jurisdictions.
AI-generated inventions often challenge the novelty and inventive step criteria.
B. Copyright
AI systems generating medical reports, charts, diagnostic recommendations, or patient education materials may raise copyright issues.
Originality is critical; AI alone is typically not recognized as an author.
C. Trade Secrets
AI robots often learn from hospital databases.
Protecting patient data and AI algorithms as trade secrets is crucial.
Confidentiality agreements are essential.
D. Liability for IP Infringement
If AI copies copyrighted materials or patents (e.g., algorithm, drug formulation), who is responsible?
Liability often rests on the human operator, institution, or developer.
E. Data Rights and Access
Training AI on medical records can involve ownership, licensing, and consent issues.
Patient data may not be patented but is often protected under privacy laws.
2. Case Laws Explained in Detail
Here are 6 case laws relevant to AI-assisted healthcare robotics and IPR:
Case 1: Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents (UK, 2023)
Facts:
AI system DABUS created inventions, including medical devices.
Patent application filed listing AI as inventor.
Issue:
Can AI be recognized as an inventor under UK patent law?
Judgment:
UK law requires a human inventor.
AI cannot hold legal inventorship; the application was rejected.
Relevance to Healthcare Robots:
AI-assisted robotic healthcare systems cannot be inventors of surgical tools or diagnostics.
Human inventors must be clearly listed for patent protection.
Case 2: Thaler v. Vidal (USA, 2022)
Facts:
Same DABUS AI system, patent filed in the U.S. for AI-generated inventions.
Issue:
Does U.S. patent law recognize AI as an inventor?
Judgment:
The U.S. Patent Act requires inventors to be natural persons.
AI cannot be named as an inventor; patent rejected.
Relevance:
For healthcare robotics, AI-generated diagnostic algorithms cannot be patented under AI inventorship.
Human researchers must be named.
Case 3: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, USA, 2018)
Facts:
Monkey took a selfie with a photographer’s camera.
Claim filed that copyright belonged to the monkey.
Judgment:
Copyright requires human authorship; non-humans cannot own IP.
Relevance:
AI-assisted healthcare robots generating reports or charts cannot own copyright.
Only human collaborators can hold IP rights.
Case 4: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (USA, 1991)
Facts:
Telephone directory’s compilation claimed copyright protection.
Judgment:
Only works showing minimal creativity qualify.
Mere compilation of facts is not protected.
Relevance to AI Healthcare:
AI-generated patient data analysis or automated reports may lack originality for copyright unless human intervention adds creativity.
Case 5: University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services (India, 2016)
Facts:
Photocopy shop reproduced course packs; educational use claimed.
Judgment:
Educational fair dealing allows some reproduction.
Relevance:
AI healthcare robots used for research or teaching purposes may leverage fair dealing.
Commercial use may still require licenses or IP permissions.
Case 6: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (India, 2008)
Facts:
Judicial database claimed copyright on edited judgments.
Judgment:
Copyright applies only to works with modicum of creativity.
Mechanical reproduction not protected.
Relevance:
AI-assisted healthcare robots producing medical summaries or automated charts need human editorial input to gain copyright protection.
Case 7: Artificial Inventor DABUS – European Patent Office (EPO, 2021)
Facts:
EPO received patent application for AI-generated inventions (medical device).
Judgment:
EPO rejected AI as inventor, reaffirming humans must be listed as inventors.
Relevance:
Confirms global trend: AI-generated healthcare inventions cannot hold patents independently.
3. Application of Case Laws to AI-Assisted Healthcare Robots
| IP Issue | Application to Healthcare Robotics | Key Takeaway from Case Laws |
|---|---|---|
| Patent | AI generates surgical tools, diagnostics, or algorithms | Human must be inventor (Thaler v. UK/US, DABUS EPO) |
| Copyright | AI generates medical reports, patient charts | Human creativity required (Naruto, Feist, Eastern Book) |
| Trade Secrets | Hospital AI system uses patient data | Maintain confidentiality; protect algorithms |
| Liability | AI replicates protected IP | Humans/operators/developers liable (implicit in cases) |
| Data Rights | AI trained on medical data | Ensure licenses, patient consent |
4. Key Takeaways
AI cannot be an inventor or author — only human collaborators can hold IP.
Human involvement is crucial for patent, copyright, and trade secret protection.
Originality or creativity must be demonstrated for copyright in AI-generated works.
Institutional policies and employment agreements are vital to secure IP in healthcare AI.
Global trend: Courts and patent offices consistently reject AI inventorship claims.
RELATED Blog
comments