India has introduced updated guidelines in 2025 to streamline the legal framework for AI-related assets, differentiating between human-involved and autonomous AI inventions across patents, copyright, trade marks, and designs, while highlighting ongoing challenges around training data and trade secrets.

India’s intellectual property regime now has a clearer, if still imperfect, framework for artificial intelligence. The country continues to protect AI-linked assets through the four familiar channels of patents, copyright, trade marks and designs, but the practical test is no longer whether an AI system is involved; it is which part of the asset the law can actually recognise, and on whose behalf. The latest shift came with the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, issued in July 2025, which the government says were designed to improve consistency in examining AI, machine learning, deep learning, cloud computing, quantum computing and blockchain-related inventions.

For patents, the central issue remains Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which excludes mathematical methods, business methods, computer programs per se and algorithms. The revised CRI Guidelines 2025, together with recent High Court rulings, emphasise that applicants must show a genuine technical contribution or technical effect, not just automation dressed up as innovation. The Indian Patent Office has also sharpened the disclosure burden for AI and ML inventions, expecting applicants to explain model structure, data characteristics, training approach and validation in enough detail to satisfy sufficiency of disclosure.

The inventorship point is now firmly settled in India’s administrative guidance: AI cannot be listed as the inventor. The CRI Guidelines treat AI as a tool, not a legal person, and keep the application route tied to a human applicant under Section 6. That makes a distinction between AI-assisted inventions, which may still be patentable if they meet the ordinary tests, and AI-generated inventions that are produced with little or no human intervention, which the framework treats very differently.

Copyright follows a different logic. Indian law already contains a computer-generated works provision, and the current position is that the author of such a work is the human who causes it to be created. That leaves room for protection where a person meaningfully directs, curates or shapes the output, but it does not automatically extend authorship to the machine itself. The practical result is that ownership questions will often turn on contracts, prompt design, editorial control and the surrounding chain of human contribution.

The unresolved pressure point is training data. India still has no dedicated text-and-data-mining exception, and the Copyright Act’s fair-dealing provisions were not drafted for large-scale model training. That is why the pending litigation brought by ANI Media against OpenAI matters so much: it is expected to become the first major judicial test of whether storing copyrighted material for training, or generating outputs from such material, can be justified under existing Indian law.

Trade marks are less legally dramatic but no less important commercially. The application is still filed by a human or corporate applicant, and registrability depends on the ordinary tests of distinctiveness and confusion. AI may now be used to speed up clearance searches, monitoring and portfolio management, but it does not change the basic filing position. The real question for AI-generated branding is whether the mark functions as a source identifier in the mind of the consumer.

Design law raises its own authorship issue. A visual interface, product shell or other ornamental feature may qualify for registration, but the law still assumes an identifiable human author. If the design is merely the output of an autonomous system with no meaningful human direction, its status becomes far more vulnerable. In practice, applicants will need records showing human selection, iteration and curation if they want an AI-assisted design to stand up at the registration stage.

Where India is still weak is in confidential know-how. There is no standalone trade-secret statute, so training data, model weights, prompts and fine-tuning methods depend on contract, confidentiality obligations, employment assignments and access controls. For AI businesses, that means the legal protection stack is mixed: patents for technical inventions, copyright for human-directed expressive works, trade marks for brands, designs for appearance, and contracts for the data and model assets that sit outside all four regimes.

Comparatively, India now sits in line with other major jurisdictions on one important point: AI is not treated as an inventor. The United States, the United Kingdom and the European Patent Office have all taken the same broad position on inventorship, though they diverge on training-data exceptions and trade-secret architecture. The Indian position is therefore no longer unusual on invention ownership, but it remains incomplete on data use, where the law has yet to catch up with how modern AI systems are built and trained.

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph: - Paragraph 1: [2], [3] - Paragraph 2: [3], [4], [7] - Paragraph 3: [2], [3] - Paragraph 4: [2] - Paragraph 5: [2] - Paragraph 6: [2] - Paragraph 7: [2] - Paragraph 8: [2] - Paragraph 9: [2]

Source: Noah Wire Services

Verification / Sources

  • https://www.intepat.com/blog/intellectual-property-law-for-artificial-intelligence - Please view link - unable to able to access data
  • https://www.intepat.com/blog/intellectual-property-law-for-artificial-intelligence - This article provides an overview of India's intellectual property (IP) laws as they pertain to artificial intelligence (AI). It discusses how AI-related assets are protected under four distinct IP regimes: patents, copyright, trade marks, and designs. The article highlights the CRI Guidelines 2025, which clarify that AI cannot be named as an inventor, and that AI-generated content requires a human 'person who causes the work to be created' for copyright purposes. Comparative notes on the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union are also included, focusing on areas where the Indian framework has material gaps.
  • https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2149719 - The Press Information Bureau released a statement on 29 July 2025, announcing the publication of the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs), 2025 by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM). These guidelines aim to enhance clarity and consistency in the examination of CRIs, incorporating considerations for emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL), Cloud Computing, Quantum Computing, and Blockchain. The guidelines provide a detailed chapter on jurisprudence, a step-wise assessment methodology for Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, and a comprehensive chapter on the examination of inventions related to AI, ML, and other emerging technologies.
  • https://www.iam-media.com/article/indian-patent-office-releases-highly-anticipated-examination-guidelines-computer-related-inventions - This article discusses the Indian Patent Office's release of the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025. The guidelines aim to bring uniformity in examination across different branches of the IPO and give full effect to statutory provisions and their judicial interpretation. They consider a series of landmark judgments, offer new assessment frameworks, and introduce structured tests for traditionally complex exclusions, such as algorithms, business methods, mathematical methods, and computer programs. The guidelines are designed to address regulatory challenges in evaluating Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) concerning emerging technologies in the field of Information and Communication Technology.
  • https://www.ipindia.gov.in/Home/NewsDetail?News=Public+Notice%3A+Invitation+for+Comments+on+Revised+Draft+CRI+Guidelines+2025%2C+Version+2.0 - The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) published the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), 2025, Version 2.0 along with Annexure-I for public consultation. Stakeholders and the public are invited to provide their comments and suggestions on the draft guidelines. Feedback can be sent via email to [email protected] and [email protected] with the subject line: 'Comments on Revised Draft CRI Guidelines 2025-Version 2.0'. The last date for submitting comments is 07-07-2025.
  • https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/cri-guidelines-2025-version-2/ - This article provides an overview of the Indian Patent Office's release of Draft CRI Guidelines 2025 – Version 2.0, along with an illustrative Annexure to clarify the examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The version includes updated case law, guidance on AI, blockchain, and quantum computing inventions, and categorized examples aligned with Section 3(k) exclusions. The article outlines the key structural and substantive changes introduced in Version 2.0, based on a comparison with the March 2025 draft, and discusses the implications for patent applicants and practitioners.
  • https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/revised-cri-guidelines-2025 - This article provides an overview of the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions 2025. The draft guidelines are designed to address regulatory challenges in evaluating Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) concerning emerging technologies in the field of Information and Communication Technology. The article discusses the inclusion of a detailed chapter on jurisprudence elaborating the nuances of CRIs, a step-wise assessment methodology for Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, and a comprehensive chapter on the examination of inventions related to Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), and Deep Learning (DL), Blockchain, Quantum Computing, with scenario-based examples, sufficiency of disclosure requirements, and aspects which may take it out of the purview of exclusion under section 3(k).

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first emerged. We've since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score: 10

Notes: The article was published on April 21, 2026, making it current and relevant. The content references the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) issued in July 2025, indicating that the information is up-to-date.

Quotes check

Score: 8

Notes: The article includes direct quotes from the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025, which are publicly available. However, the article does not provide specific citations for these quotes, making independent verification challenging. Without direct links to the original guidelines, it's difficult to confirm the accuracy of the quoted material.

Source reliability

Score: 7

Notes: The article is published on Intepat's official blog, which is a reputable source for intellectual property information. However, as a corporate blog, it may present information with a particular perspective or bias. The article references the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025, which are official documents from the Indian Patent Office. While the guidelines are publicly accessible, the article does not provide direct links to these documents, making independent verification of the information more difficult.

Plausibility check

Score: 9

Notes: The article discusses the application of Indian intellectual property law to artificial intelligence, referencing the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025. The content aligns with known developments in India's IP framework, including the exclusion of AI as an inventor and the requirement for human authorship in AI-generated content. However, without direct citations to the original guidelines, it's challenging to confirm the accuracy of specific details.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM

Summary: The article provides a current and plausible discussion on India's intellectual property law concerning artificial intelligence, referencing the Revised Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) 2025. However, the absence of direct citations to the original guidelines and the reliance on a corporate blog for information reduce the overall confidence in the verification. While the content is likely accurate, the lack of independent verification sources warrants a medium confidence level.