{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T02:53:15Z","timestamp":1791255195969,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":53,"publisher":"VidhiAagaz","issue":"V","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1791244800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["IJLMH"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in invention workflows, yet patent systems continue to define inventorship in human terms. The central problem is not whether AI contributes to technical creativity, but whether existing legal doctrines can allocate ownership, responsibility, and evidentiary accountability when inventive processes are distributed across humans and AI systems. Prior scholarship has examined DABUS disputes and personhood debates, but the literature remains fragmented across jurisdictions and often under-specifies operational reform pathways for patent offices and courts. This article addresses that gap through a comparative doctrinal design covering the United States, United Kingdom, European Union\/Germany, Australia, South Africa, India, China, and selected emerging jurisdictions. The analysis triangulates statutes, judicial decisions, patent-office guidance, and Scopus-indexed legal scholarship from 2019\u20132026. The findings show convergence on human-only inventorship, but persistent divergence in disclosure expectations, contribution tests, and evidentiary practices. These divergences produce transparency deficits, cross-border uncertainty, and uneven enforcement risk for multinational portfolios. The article\u2019s original contribution is a six-part harmonized reform model that preserves human-centered inventorship while modernizing AI-contribution disclosure, contribution assessment, evidentiary protocols, interoperability standards, targeted supplementary protection for edge cases, and governance integration. The model is explicitly grounded in an accountability architecture framework that separates legal status from evidentiary governance. This framework offers a practical route to doctrinal stability and policy coherence without requiring full AI legal personhood.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.63108\/ijlmh.12969","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T02:23:00Z","timestamp":1791253380000},"page":"1950-1965","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["AI Inventorship in Patent Law: Comparative Doctrine, Regulatory Divergence, and Harmonized Reform"],"prefix":"10.63108","volume":"9","author":[{"given":"R. Sowjanya","family":"Yamini","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Research Scholar at School of Law, Presidency University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohd","family":"Saleem","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Associate Professor at School of Law, Presidency University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"19992","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]]},"reference":[{"key":"#cr-split#-ref1.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Daria Kim, The Paradox of the DABUS Judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, 71 GRUR Int'l 1162 (2022), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/grurint\/ikac125","DOI":"10.1093\/grurint\/ikac125"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref1.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rita Matulionyte, 'AI Is Not an Inventor': Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Patentability of AI Inventions, 88 Mod. L. Rev. 205 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/1468-2230.12907.","DOI":"10.1111\/1468-2230.12907"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref2.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mateo Aboy, Kathleen Liddell & Aparajita Lath, Inventorship in the Age of AI: Examining the USPTO Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions, 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 495 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jiplp\/jpaf019","DOI":"10.1093\/jiplp\/jpaf019"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref2.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Joanna Wang, Navigating the USPTO's AI Inventorship Guidance in AI-Driven Drug Discovery, 12 J.L. & Biosciences lsaf014 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jlb\/lsaf014.","DOI":"10.1093\/jlb\/lsaf014"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref3.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Edward Koellner, AI and Intellectual Property Law in the Digital Age: Creating a Cohesive Global System for Ethical Innovation and Societal Benefit, Jusletter IT (Apr. 30, 2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.38023\/c0b9fea3-d2ed-41b2-9f00-031b9c4ac0df","DOI":"10.38023\/c0b9fea3-d2ed-41b2-9f00-031b9c4ac0df"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref3.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Peter Georg Picht & Florent Thouvenin, AI and IP: Theory to Policy and Back Again - Policy and Research Recommendations at the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, 54 IIC 916 (2023), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40319-023-01344-5","DOI":"10.1007\/s40319-023-01344-5"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref3.3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Viktor Popov et al., Intellectual Property Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Legal Challenges and Regulatory Perspectives, 4 Int'l J.L. & Soc'y 165 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.59683\/ijls.v4i1.133.","DOI":"10.59683\/ijls.v4i1.133"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref4.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Latika Choudhary, Himani Kaushik & Hardik Daga, Why AI Cannot Be an Inventor: A Post-Humanist Rejection of AI as Legal Inventor, 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. & Prac. 732 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jiplp\/jpaf063","DOI":"10.1093\/jiplp\/jpaf063"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref4.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Andreas Engel, Can a Patent Be Granted for an AI-Generated Invention?, 69 GRUR Int'l 1123 (2020), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/grurint\/ikaa117.","DOI":"10.1093\/grurint\/ikaa117"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref5.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Arunabha Banerjee, Autonomy of AI in Patents: Reconciling Commercial Incentive with Traditional Inventorship, 30 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 12 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.56042\/jipr.v30i1.3714","DOI":"10.56042\/jipr.v30i1.3714"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref5.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Akansha Yadav & Satish Kumar, Autonomy of Artificial Intelligence in Patent Laws: Reconciling Business Incentive with Traditional Rules of Inventorship with Special Reference to the Jurisdictions of European Union, United States of America and Japan, 3220 AIP Conf. Proc. 040011 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1063\/5.0235003.","DOI":"10.1063\/5.0235003"},{"key":"ref6","unstructured":"Kim, Paradox of the DABUS Judgment, supra note 1; Rita Matulionyte, AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?, 13 J. Intell. Prop. Info. Tech. & Elec. Com. L. 99 (2022), https:\/\/www.jipitec.eu\/jipitec\/article\/view\/348; Matulionyte, AI Is Not an Inventor, supra note 1."},{"key":"ref7","unstructured":"Aboy et al., supra note 2; Wang, supra note 2."},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref8.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Prabuddha Ganguli, Recognising Generative and Autonomous AI as a 'Juridical Person', 6 J. Data Prot. & Priv. 392 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.69554\/AYHZ2687","DOI":"10.69554\/AYHZ2687"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref8.2","unstructured":"Fatima Rizq Moustafa, Towards Recognition of the Legal Personality of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Recognizing Reality and Law, 19 Int'l J. Crim. Just. Scis. 271 (2024), https:\/\/ijcjs.com\/menu-script\/index.php\/ijcjs\/article\/view\/885."},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref9.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Siina Raskulla, Hybrid Theory of Corporate Legal Personhood and Its Application to Artificial Intelligence, 3 SN Soc. Sci. 78 (2023), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s43545-023-00667-x","DOI":"10.1007\/s43545-023-00667-x"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref9.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid & Alec Goldstein, Artificial Inventor Project, in Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence and the Law 40 (Ryan Abbott & Elizabeth Rothman eds., 2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4337\/9781035336906.00016.","DOI":"10.4337\/9781035336906.00016"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref10.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ahmed Bahgat, AI Governance and Data Privacy in Cross-Border Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Frameworks, 8 J. Data Prot. & Priv. 8 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.69554\/BOJL3033","DOI":"10.69554\/BOJL3033"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref10.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Xukang Wang & Ying Cheng Wu, Balancing Innovation and Regulation in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence, 14 J. Info. Pol'y 385 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5325\/jinfopoli.14.2024.0012.","DOI":"10.5325\/jinfopoli.14.2024.0012"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref11.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Anna Bashir, Prospects and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Protection in Indian IPR Regime vis-\u00e0-vis EU, China and the US, 30 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 65 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.56042\/jipr.v30i1.7403","DOI":"10.56042\/jipr.v30i1.7403"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref11.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wen Ding & Shemin Deng, The Patentability of AI-Generated Technical Solutions and Institutional Responses: Chinese Perspective vs. Other Countries, 16 Information 629 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/info16080629.","DOI":"10.3390\/info16080629"},{"key":"ref12","unstructured":"Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10,043 (Feb. 13, 2024) (applying the factors in Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998))."},{"key":"ref13","unstructured":"Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 90 Fed. Reg. 54,636 (Nov. 28, 2025) (rescinding the February 2024 guidance), https:\/\/www.federalregister.gov\/documents\/2025\/11\/28\/2025-21457\/revised-inventorship-guidance-for-ai-assisted-inventions."},{"key":"ref14","unstructured":"Aboy et al., supra note 2; Wang, supra note 2."},{"key":"ref15","unstructured":"Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 (appeal taken from Eng.)."},{"key":"ref16","unstructured":"Matulionyte, AI Is Not an Inventor, supra note 1."},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kim, Paradox of the DABUS Judgment, supra note 1; Daria Kim, The Illusory Standard of Significant Human Contribution to AI-Assisted Inventions after the DABUS Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, 56 IIC 369 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40319-025-01567-8.","DOI":"10.1007\/s40319-025-01567-8"},{"key":"ref18","unstructured":"Picht & Thouvenin, supra note 3; Wang & Wu, supra note 10."},{"key":"ref19","unstructured":"Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler [2022] FCAFC 62, (2022) 289 FCR 45 (Austl.); Matulionyte, AI as an Inventor, supra note 6; Popov et al., supra note 3."},{"key":"ref20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ding & Deng, supra note 11; G. R. Raghavender & Gurujit Singh, Can Artificial Intelligence (AI) Machine Be Granted Inventorship in India?, 28 J. Intell. Prop. Rts. 123 (2023), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.56042\/jipr.v28i2.1268.","DOI":"10.56042\/jipr.v28i2.1268"},{"key":"ref21","unstructured":"Bashir, supra note 11."},{"key":"ref22","unstructured":"Ding & Deng, supra note 11; Popov et al., supra note 3."},{"key":"ref23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Koellner, supra note 3; Michal Malacka, AI Legislation, Private International Law and the Protection of Human Rights in the European Union, 11 Eur. Stud. 122 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2478\/eustu-2024-0006; Michiel Poesen, Private International Law and Artificial Intelligence: An EU Perspective, 31 Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 365 (2023), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.54648\/erpl2023013.","DOI":"10.54648\/ERPL2023013"},{"key":"ref24","unstructured":"Banerjee, supra note 5; Choudhary et al., supra note 4; Kim, Illusory Standard, supra note 17."},{"key":"ref25","unstructured":"Akanksha Bisoyi, Ownership, Liability, Patentability, and Creativity Issues in Artificial Intelligence, 31 Info. Sec. J.: Global Persp. 377 (2022), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19393555.2022.2060879; Rama G. Elluru, Patent Law, Inventorship, in Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence and the Law 274 (Ryan Abbott & Elizabeth Rothman eds., 2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4337\/9781035336906.00073; Wang, supra note 2."},{"key":"ref26","unstructured":"Aboy et al., supra note 2; Banerjee, supra note 5; Kim, Illusory Standard, supra note 17; Wang, supra note 2."},{"key":"ref27","unstructured":"Bahgat, supra note 10; Malacka, supra note 23; Poesen, supra note 23."},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref28.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Iana Kazeeva, Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection for Works Generated by AI Systems, in Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection: Comparison of EU and U.S. Regulatory Approaches 65 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-981-99-8897-6_5","DOI":"10.1007\/978-981-99-8897-6_5"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref28.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Anna Shtefan, Sui Generis Protection of AI-Generated Outputs in Ukraine, 12 InterEULawEast 79 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.22598\/iele.2025.12.2.3.","DOI":"10.22598\/iele.2025.12.2.3"},{"key":"ref29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kazeeva, supra note 28; Yurii Khodyko, Legal Regime of Inventions Created by Artificial Intelligence, 16 L., State & Telecomm. Rev. 322 (2024), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.26512\/lstr.v16i1.48972; Shtefan, supra note 28.","DOI":"10.26512\/lstr.v16i1.48972"},{"key":"ref30","unstructured":"Koellner, supra note 3; Picht & Thouvenin, supra note 3."},{"key":"ref31","unstructured":"Ganguli, supra note 8; Moustafa, supra note 8."},{"key":"ref32","unstructured":"Kim, Illusory Standard, supra note 17; Malacka, supra note 23; Poesen, supra note 23."},{"key":"ref33","unstructured":"Aboy et al., supra note 2; Wang, supra note 2."},{"key":"ref34","unstructured":"Bahgat, supra note 10; Wang & Wu, supra note 10."},{"key":"ref35","unstructured":"Banerjee, supra note 5; Raghavender & Singh, supra note 20."},{"key":"ref36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bashir, supra note 11; Koellner, supra note 3; Zhen Li, Baomin Wang & Xiaoying Zhao, Legislation of Artificial Intelligence Research from the Perspective of New-Quality Productivity, in Proceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Educational Technology and Artificial Intelligence 487 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1145\/3766557.3766640; Popov et al., supra note 3; Wang, supra note 2.","DOI":"10.1145\/3766557.3766640"},{"key":"ref37","unstructured":"Bashir, supra note 11; Popov et al., supra note 3."},{"key":"ref38","unstructured":"Kazeeva, supra note 28; Khodyko, supra note 29; Shtefan, supra note 28."},{"key":"ref39","unstructured":"Kim, Illusory Standard, supra note 17; Koellner, supra note 3; Malacka, supra note 23; Picht & Thouvenin, supra note 3."},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref40.1","unstructured":"Mohammad Abdallah & Mousa Salah, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Properties: Legal and Ethical Considerations, 12 Int'l J. Intelligent Sys. & Applications Eng'g 368 (2024), https:\/\/ijisae.org\/index.php\/IJISAE\/article\/view\/3911"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref40.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Vanessa G. L. Pessoa & Valdecir Becker, Righteous Principles in AI: The Essential Role of Ethical Governance in Effectively Reducing Bias, in Applications and Usability of Interactive TV 155 (Mar\u00eda Jos\u00e9 Ab\u00e1solo, Carlos De Castro Lozano & Gonzalo F. Olmedo Cifuentes eds., 2026), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-032-01162-6_10","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-032-01162-6_10"},{"key":"#cr-split#-ref40.3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Pedro Robles & Daniel J. Mallinson, Advancing AI Governance with a Unified Theoretical Framework: A Systematic Review, 8 Persps. on Pub. Mgmt. & Governance 213 (2025), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ppmgov\/gvaf013.","DOI":"10.1093\/ppmgov\/gvaf013"}],"container-title":["International Journal of Law Management &amp; Humanities"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/ijlmh.com\/article\/download\/ai-inventorship-patent-law-comparative-doctrine\/1305","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/ijlmh.com\/article\/download\/ai-inventorship-patent-law-comparative-doctrine\/1306","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/ijlmh.com\/article\/download\/ai-inventorship-patent-law-comparative-doctrine\/1305","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T02:23:11Z","timestamp":1791253391000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/ijlmh.com\/article\/view\/ai-inventorship-patent-law-comparative-doctrine"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]]},"references-count":53,"journal-issue":{"issue":"V","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.63108\/ijlmh.12969","relation":{},"ISSN":["2581-5369"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2581-5369","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]]}}}