Emerging Legal Terrain: IP Risks from AI's Role In Drug Discovery
This article explores the benefits and risks of AI-driven drug discovery from the legal perspective. Since the law governing IP rights in AI-driven drug discovery is still in its infant state, any future legal development is likely to have significant implications in many areas.
May 08, 2024 at 03:53 PM
22 minute read
What You Need to Know
- Drug discovery involving AI tools has quickly occupied significant territory in the pharmaceutical industry.
- Despite the values brought to the business, the rapid implementation of AI might have created unintended effects in law that could severely impact a pharmaceutical company's right to the drug.
- Understanding AI's role in the IP issues early in the drug discovery process will be vital to develop a holistic exclusivity strategy that maximizes a company's IP rights in light of AI involvement.
Drug discovery involving artificial intelligence (AI) tools has quickly occupied significant territory in the pharmaceutical industry. One study found that the number of startup drug candidate pipelines employing AI is roughly equivalent to 50% of the preclinical programs of big pharmaceutical firms. See, Jayatunga et al., "AI in Small-Molecule Drug Discovery: a Coming Wave?" Nature Reviews, March 2022. The prevalence of AI has generally led to significantly reduced drug discovery timelines. Current research data indicates that AI-driven discovery pipelines on average reach the preclinical phase within four years, compared to the conventional expectation of five to six years. Id.
Despite the values brought to the business, the rapid implementation of AI might have created unintended effects in law that could severely impact a pharmaceutical company's right to the drug. The IP rights in AI-driven drugs, like those in drugs discovered using conventional methods, will mostly take the form of patent exclusivity before the generic market is open to competitors. Yet, AI use in drug discovery is still early enough, that if AI "discovers" the drug, the state of law has not yet been established to address whether the pharmaceutical company will enjoy a similar exclusivity. Two recent case decisions, despite not being related to drug discovery, are examples signifying that there can be circumstances where a pharmaceutical company may not be entitled to the same exclusivity. In a copyright registration case, the U.S. Copyright Office has denied the registration of an artwork named "SURYAST" that was generated by AI, finding insufficient human authorship in the creative work. On the patent front, in Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit held that the term "inventor" in the Patent Act refers to a natural person, and, thus, AI cannot be an inventor. The logical extension of the holding of Thaler is that, if AI is deemed the sole inventor of a drug, the drug will be ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101, which states, "whoever invents … may obtain a patent …."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLinkedIn Suit Says Millions of Profiles Scraped by Singapore Firm’s Fake Accounts
5 minute readPoop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250