Apply Now

Day-12: Certificate Course On The Interface Between Artificial Intelligence And Intellectual Property Rights By Dr. Ravindra Chingale

Session on Intersection of AI and IP: A Way Forward

Event Date and Year: 15th Jan 2026

Event Brief Description:

The School of Law was honored to host a specialized lecture titled "Intersection of AI and IP: A Way Forward," featuring Adv. Dr. Ravindra Chingale, an Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court of India. With a robust background as an engineer-turned-lawyer and a PhD from NLU Delhi, Dr. Chingale brought a multidisciplinary perspective to the evolving AI ecosystem, spanning Healthcare, Fintech, and Agritech.

The session focused on the critical tension between Copyright and Patent protections for software and AI-driven innovations. Dr. Chingale explored the bifurcated nature of protection: Section 2(o) of the Indian Copyright Act, which classifies computer programs as "literary works," versus the restrictive "per se" exclusions found in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. By providing a comparative analysis of the U.S. approach under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the Indian "Technical Effect" doctrine, he provided clarity on how algorithms can transcend the "abstractness" barrier to achieve patentability. The lecture highlighted current judicial trends, the impact of the 2025 CRI Guidelines, and emerging issues such as AI inventorship and the use of trade secrets as an alternative to patent disclosure.

Event Detailed Description:

The lecture delivered by Adv. Dr. Ravindra Chingale provided an advanced analytical framework for navigating the legal complexities where Artificial Intelligence meets Intellectual Property Rights. Dr. Chingale initiated the discussion by distinguishing between the Economic Rights (replication and public availability) and Moral Rights (integrity and attribution) that form the bedrock of copyright jurisprudence in the digital age.

The Software Protection Dilemma: Copyright vs. Patents A significant portion of the discourse was dedicated to the statutory interpretation of computer program protection. In India, while Section 2(o) provides a relatively straightforward path for software as a "literary work," patenting remains a complex hurdle due to Section 3(k). Dr. Chingale meticulously traced the evolution of the Indian position, from the 2004 Ordinance to the 2005 Amendment, emphasizing that while a computer program per se is not patentable, its "technical application to industry" or "combination with hardware" may qualify for protection.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The U.S. vs. India Dr. Chingale provided a comparative lens using the U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C. 101). He explained how the U.S. courts grapple with "abstractness," requiring that an invention be tied to a particular apparatus or operate to change materials to a different state. In contrast, the Indian judiciary has fortified the "Technical Effect" doctrine. He specifically cited the Allani Case (2020), where a patent for a method of accessing web information was upheld because it demonstrated higher speed, economical memory use, and a more efficient database strategy.

The 2025 CRI Guidelines: A New Era The lecture highlighted the transformative nature of the 2025 Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines. These guidelines introduce:

  • Step-wise Assessment Methodology: A rigorous process for IPO officials to evaluate Section 3(k) exclusions.
  • Technical Jurisprudence: Specific chapters on AI, Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), and Quantum Computing.
  • Sufficiency of Disclosure: Requirements that ensure AI innovations are adequately described to move beyond "mere schemes" or "mental acts" under Section 3(m).

The Way Forward: Ownership and Sui Generis Systems Concluding the session, Dr. Chingale addressed the "Inventorship Crisis"—whether an AI can be recognized as an inventor. He discussed the Neural Magic v. Meta case in the U.S. as a prime example of where sophisticated algorithms were better protected via Trade Secrets than patents. He also touched upon international trends, such as the Ukrainian approach toward computer-generated works and the potential for a sui generis IPR system specifically designed for the unique lifecycle of AI inventions.

Department Name: School of Law, Galgotias University

Event Outcome:

  • Statutory Mastery: Participants gained a precise understanding of the interplay between Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act and Sections 3(k), 3(ka), and 3(m) of the Patents Act.
  • Judicial Insight: Attendees learned to apply the "Technical Effect" and "Technical Contribution" tests to assess the patentability of AI-driven inventions based on current Indian precedents like Yahoo! Inc. and the Allani case.
  • Procedural Awareness: Students and practitioners were sensitized to the 2025 CRI Guidelines, specifically the new assessment flowcharts and the 40 indicative examples of allowable claims.
  • Strategic IP Planning: The session equipped attendees with the ability to determine when to seek patent protection versus when to utilize Trade Secrecy, especially regarding high-efficiency ML algorithms.
  • Global Legal Literacy: The comparative analysis of U.S. and Ukrainian law provided a broader perspective on territorial jurisdiction and the emerging global consensus on AI-generated content and self-declaration of authorship.