Ipr In AI-Assisted Surgery.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in AI-Assisted Surgery
1. Introduction
AI-assisted surgery combines artificial intelligence, robotics, medical devices, software algorithms, and clinical expertise to enhance precision, reduce human error, and improve patient outcomes. Examples include robotic surgical systems, AI-based diagnostic tools, real-time decision-support algorithms, and autonomous or semi-autonomous surgical instruments.
This technological convergence raises complex IPR questions, particularly regarding:
Ownership of inventions created using AI
Patentability of AI algorithms and surgical methods
Copyright over software and datasets
Liability and inventorship disputes
Protection of trade secrets and confidential medical data
2. Key IPR Issues in AI-Assisted Surgery
(a) Patentability of AI-Based Surgical Technologies
Can AI algorithms used in surgery be patented?
Are surgical methods excluded from patent protection?
Does AI qualify as an “inventor”?
(b) Ownership and Inventorship
Who owns innovations created by AI systems?
Is the surgeon, hospital, software developer, or AI system the inventor?
(c) Copyright in Software and Databases
Protection of source code, machine-learning models, and training datasets.
Authorship of AI-generated outputs.
(d) Trade Secrets and Confidentiality
Protection of proprietary algorithms and training data.
Risk of data leakage in collaborative AI systems.
3. Case Laws Related to IPR and AI-Assisted Surgery
Case 1: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
The issue was whether a genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil was patentable subject matter.
Legal Issue:
Whether living organisms or technological innovations involving biological processes could be patented.
Judgment:
The Court held that “anything under the sun that is made by man” is patentable unless explicitly excluded.
Relevance to AI-Assisted Surgery:
Established the principle that technological medical innovations are patentable.
Supports patent protection for AI-based surgical tools and robotic systems.
Forms the foundation for patenting AI-driven medical technologies.
Case 2: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (2013, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
Myriad Genetics patented isolated DNA sequences used to detect breast cancer.
Legal Issue:
Whether naturally occurring genetic material can be patented.
Judgment:
Naturally occurring DNA is not patentable, but synthetically created DNA is patent-eligible.
Relevance:
AI-assisted surgery often relies on data derived from nature (human anatomy, biological signals).
Reinforces that raw medical data cannot be patented, but AI-processed, transformed outputs may be.
Important for AI-based surgical planning systems.
Case 3: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
The patent related to a computer-implemented method for financial transactions.
Legal Issue:
Whether abstract ideas implemented through software are patentable.
Judgment:
Abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not patentable unless they show a technical improvement.
Relevance:
Crucial for AI-assisted surgery patents involving algorithms.
AI surgical software must demonstrate technical contribution (e.g., enhanced precision, real-time error correction).
Prevents patenting of mere algorithms without practical medical application.
Case 4: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012, US Supreme Court)
Facts:
The patent claimed a method of determining drug dosage using correlations between metabolite levels and efficacy.
Legal Issue:
Whether laws of nature applied through medical processes are patentable.
Judgment:
The Court held that laws of nature and natural correlations cannot be patented.
Relevance:
AI systems often rely on predictive correlations.
AI-assisted surgical decision-making must involve additional inventive steps beyond natural laws.
Important limitation on patenting diagnostic AI models used in surgery.
Case 5: DABUS Patent Applications (Stephen Thaler v. Patent Offices – UK, EU, US, India)
Facts:
An AI system (DABUS) was named as the inventor in patent applications.
Legal Issue:
Can an AI system be legally recognized as an inventor?
Judgment:
Courts and patent offices held that only natural persons can be inventors.
Relevance:
Directly impacts AI-assisted surgical innovations.
AI cannot own IP; ownership lies with:
Programmer
Operator (surgeon/hospital)
Employer or company
Clarifies inventorship in AI-driven surgical advancements.
Case 6: R (on the application of Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health (UK)
Facts:
Concerned interpretation of biotechnology laws in light of scientific advancements.
Legal Issue:
Whether law should adapt dynamically to new technology.
Judgment:
The court adopted a purposive interpretation, allowing law to evolve with technology.
Relevance:
Supports adaptive interpretation of IP laws for AI-assisted surgery.
Encourages courts to interpret patent laws flexibly for emerging surgical AI tools.
Case 7: Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Concerned copyright protection of edited legal judgments.
Legal Issue:
What level of human creativity is required for copyright?
Judgment:
The Court adopted the “modicum of creativity” standard.
Relevance:
AI-generated surgical reports or procedural data may not qualify for copyright without human creativity.
Surgeons’ annotations or modifications can attract copyright protection.
Relevant for AI-generated surgical planning documents.
4. Position in India (Specific to AI-Assisted Surgery)
Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act excludes “methods of treatment” from patentability.
However:
Surgical devices, AI-based robots, and control systems are patentable
Software with technical application in surgery may be protected under Section 3(k) exceptions
AI is not recognized as an inventor under Indian law.
5. Conclusion
AI-assisted surgery challenges traditional IPR frameworks by blurring the line between human and machine creativity. Courts globally have taken a human-centric approach, allowing protection for AI-based medical technologies while denying legal personhood to AI.
The future of IPR in AI-assisted surgery will require:
Legislative clarity on AI inventorship
Balanced patent protection without stifling innovation
Strong safeguards for medical data and trade secrets
RELATED Blog
comments