MIT Technology Review is reporting that biotech companies using artificial intelligence to discover new drugs face significant challenges in securing patents, as U.S. law currently recognizes only humans as inventors. Insilico Medicine, for example, claimed its generative AI platform "discovered" a promising drug for pulmonary fibrosis but listed five human inventors, including CEO Alex Zhavoronkov, on the patent application.
The publication said this discrepancy highlights a complex issue in intellectual property law. U.S. courts have concluded that an inventor must be an "individual," meaning a human being. This precedent was established in 2022 when an appeals court in Washington, D.C., rejected a pro bono test case brought by attorney Ryan Abbott, which sought to name an AI called DABUS as the inventor of a food container. The court stated that "metaphysical matters" were irrelevant, focusing on the statutory definition of an inventor.
Sarah Korman, chief business and legal officer of Isomorphic Labs, told MIT Technology Review that laws will need to evolve to keep pace with AI, acknowledging that AIs can invent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, under the Trump administration, reversed previous guidance and now considers AI merely a tool, not requiring its mention in patent applications. Abbott expressed concern that excluding AI-generated outputs from protection could hinder future drug development, noting similar issues with the U.S. Copyright Office refusing to grant copyrights to AI-generated content.
Insilico's Zhavoronkov said human chemists remain crucial, synthesizing drugs, creating variants, and testing them. He noted that even if the process were fully roboticized, someone would still initiate the process and provide funding, making them the named inventor. Abbott questioned whether simply "pushing a button" should qualify someone as an inventor, suggesting this will be a question for future legal cases.
Full Article: When AI designs a drug, who gets the credit?