Who Owns the Invention?
Kandula Mahesh
5 minute read
Introduction
An invention may begin with an individual’s insight, develop through artificial intelligence (AI), and eventually reach the market through a company. At each stage a different question arises: who conceived the invention, who can apply for the patent, and who owns the enforceable rights? Inventorship is not identical to ownership.
A person may be the inventor but assign the patent to another person or legal entity. The following analysis focuses on the Patents Act, 1970 (India), with comparative guidance from the United States and United Kingdom.
Can an individual own a patent?
Yes. Section 6 of the Indian Patents Act permits an application by a person claiming to be the true and first inventor, an assignee of such person, or a qualifying legal representative. A person need not establish a company merely to apply.
Section 2(1)(y) excludes a person who merely imports an invention into India or receives its communication from abroad from the definition of “true and first inventor.” [1]
After grant, Section 48 generally enables the patentee to prevent unauthorised exploitation of the patented product or process, subject to statutory conditions and exceptions. An individual proprietor may license, commercially exploit or assign those rights.
Joint ownership requires additional care: Section 50 regulates co-owners’ interests and dealings. Naming someone as an inventor, however, does not itself prove that person remains the proprietor after a valid transfer. [1]
Who owns an invention generated exclusively by AI?
Consider an individual who owns an AI platform that identifies a new drug molecule without any qualifying human contribution to the inventive concept. Ownership of the computer, subscription or model does not automatically answer who can be named as patent inventor. This issue is especially important because the legal requirement of inventorship precedes the question of how ownership passes to an applicant.
In Thaler v. Vidal, the US Federal Circuit held that only a natural person qualifies as an inventor under the US Patent Act. In Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, the UK Supreme Court similarly held that the AI system DABUS could not be designated an inventor and that ownership of the system did not by itself entitle its owner to patents on its outputs. [2][3]
The USPTO’s November 2025 revised guidance confirms that ordinary human-inventorship principles govern AI-assisted inventions: AI is a tool, not an inventor. Human use of AI can still support valid inventorship when the person actually contributes to conception of the claimed invention. [4]
India has not enacted an express mechanism awarding inventorship to a fully autonomous AI system. Its statutory framework ties applications to a true and first inventor or a person deriving title from that inventor. Accordingly, an exclusively AI-generated invention with no qualifying human inventor presents unresolved Indian-law questions. A person should not claim inventorship solely because they supplied computing resources, trained a model or entered a generic prompt. [1]
What if an individual assigns an invention to a company?
Individuals frequently create inventions using personal expertise, funds and equipment, then collaborate with an employer, investor or commercialisation partner. Corporate participation does not, by itself, establish title. The result depends on the circumstances of conception, applicable employment or consultancy obligations, and any effective assignment. A pre-existing independent invention should therefore be distinguished from inventions developed within a contractual duty to invent.
Section 68 requires an assignment of a patent or interest in it to be in writing, with terms governing the parties’ rights and obligations, and duly executed. Section 69 deals with recording assignments and other interests on the patent register. A licence differs from an assignment: it permits defined uses while ownership may remain with the inventor. [1][5][6]
Before agreeing to a transfer, an individual should address the precise patents and applications covered; background intellectual property; ownership of improvements; upfront payment, royalties and milestones; territorial and field-of-use restrictions; sublicensing; reversion rights; confidentiality; and dispute resolution. Existing agreements should be reviewed before disclosure or negotiations, as later paperwork cannot safely cure every title dispute.
Which intellectual property rights should individuals protect?
Patent rights are territorial, time-limited and conditional on patentability and continued compliance with the statute. Independent inventors should preserve dated research records, technical drafts, invention disclosures, laboratory evidence and correspondence showing the human inventive contribution. Confidentiality arrangements can protect information before publication or filing; disclosure without an adequate strategy can threaten novelty.
An individual may retain inventor recognition while losing economic control of a patent through assignment. Conversely, a company may own a patent without any employee or director being entitled to claim inventorship unless that person actually contributed to the inventive concept. Where an invention is wrongfully obtained, Indian patent law contains specific remedial provisions, including Section 52 in qualifying circumstances. [1]
Conclusion
The most important distinction is between creating an invention and owning the legal rights in it. Indian law allows an individual to own a patent, but contractual assignments may alter that ownership. AI-assisted inventions can involve genuine human inventorship; exclusively autonomous AI outputs remain legally difficult because ownership of the AI system does not substitute for statutory inventorship. Independent innovators should document conception, identify pre-existing rights and negotiate corporate transfers carefully before surrendering control over valuable technologies.
References
[1] Patents Act, 1970 (India), ss. 2(1)(y), 6, 7, 48, 50, 52, 68–70. Intellectual Property India. https://www.ipindia.gov.in/acts/patent-act-1970
[2] Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/21-2347/21-2347-2022-08-05.html
[3] Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 (20 December 2023). https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2021-0201
[4] US Patent and Trademark Office, Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions (26 November 2025), 90 Fed. Reg. 54636 (28 November 2025). https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/revised-inventorship-guidance-ai-assisted-inventions
[5] Patents Act, 1970 (India), s. 68. https://www.ipindia.gov.in/acts/patent-act-1970/section-68
[6] Patents Act, 1970 (India), s. 69. https://www.ipindia.gov.in/acts/patent-act-1970/section-69