Can't patent AI drugs — so Insilico lied
insilico medicine named humans as inventors for an ai-designed drug because current laws prohibit machines from holding patents, raising concerns about the future of ip protection for fully autonomous ai discoveries.
biotech firm insilico medicine faced a legal contradiction when it credited its generative ai platform with discovering a new pulmonary fibrosis treatment but listed five human employees, including the ceo, on the subsequent patent application. current us patent law, reinforced by a 2022 federal circuit court ruling in the dabus case, strictly defines an inventor as a human "individual," rendering any patent naming an ai invalid. despite the uspto acknowledging that ais perform acts constitutive of invention, the agency maintains a don't-ask-don't-tell stance requiring human names, which legal experts like ryan abbott argue threatens the validity of ai-generated patents and discourages fully autonomous innovation.