The World Intellectual Property Organization on 18 September 2020 launched “WIPO: AI and IP, A Virtual Experience”, a virtual exhibition aimed at explaining the relationship between artificial intelligence and intellectual property systems. The exhibition was designed as an online, publicly accessible educational resource, with an archived version available on WIPO’s official website:
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/frontier-technologies/artificial-intelligence/exhibition_archive.
The launch of this virtual exhibition reflected the growing global attention on how artificial intelligence is reshaping innovation and creativity. AI technologies are increasingly used to generate text, images, music, software code, and design outputs, while also supporting analytical and administrative functions such as classification, translation, search, and data processing. As these technologies become more integrated into creative and inventive processes, long-standing intellectual property concepts—traditionally centred on human authorship and inventorship—face new interpretative and practical challenges.
Against this background, WIPO’s virtual exhibition served as an explanatory platform to illustrate how artificial intelligence interacts with different forms of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and IP administration systems. Rather than advancing legal conclusions or reform proposals, the exhibition focused on awareness-building by presenting examples, use cases, and thematic explanations that help readers understand where AI already influences IP systems and why these developments matter in a global context.
By situating artificial intelligence within the broader framework of international intellectual property, the exhibition underscored the need for informed discussion on how existing IP principles apply to emerging technologies, and why coordinated understanding across jurisdictions is increasingly important as AI continues to evolve.
Why Artificial Intelligence Became a Focus Area for Intellectual Property Discussions
Artificial intelligence has become a central topic in intellectual property discussions because its functions and outputs do not align neatly with traditional IP categories. Unlike earlier digital tools that merely assisted human activity, AI systems are increasingly capable of performing tasks that resemble creative and inventive processes, while also being deployed within the administrative infrastructure of IP systems themselves. This dual role has made AI a recurring point of examination in debates on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights.
One contributing factor is the scale and autonomy of AI-assisted outputs. Machine learning models are now used to assist in developing technical solutions, generating artistic and literary content, optimising industrial designs, and analysing large datasets for research and development. In many cases, human involvement is indirect, supervisory, or collaborative rather than expressive or inventive in the conventional sense. This has led to questions about how established legal concepts—such as inventorship, authorship, originality, and inventive step—should be interpreted when AI systems play a substantial role. These concerns are closely linked to broader discussions on how AI will change the IP industry as innovation workflows continue to evolve.
Another reason AI has drawn attention is its increasing use within IP offices and enforcement mechanisms. AI-based tools are being deployed to support prior art searches, trademark and patent classification, translation of technical documents, and data-driven examination assistance. While these technologies promise efficiency and consistency, they also raise issues related to transparency, explainability, and accountability in decision-making. The growing reliance on AI-based tools used by patent and trademark offices has therefore become a subject of policy and procedural interest, particularly where automated systems influence rights that have legal and commercial consequences.
Artificial intelligence has also contributed to a convergence of IP domains. A single AI-enabled product or service may simultaneously involve patent-protected technical features, copyright-protected outputs, trademark-protected branding, and data-related considerations. This overlap complicates the application of siloed legal analysis and has prompted renewed examination of software-related inventions, especially in jurisdictions where exclusions or special standards apply. Questions surrounding software-related inventions and patent protection illustrate how AI challenges long-standing boundaries within patent law.
In the creative sphere, AI-generated text, images, music, and audiovisual works have intensified debates on ownership and control. Existing copyright frameworks are premised on human authorship, making it difficult to categorise outputs generated through autonomous or semi-autonomous systems. As a result, discussions on copyright ownership in AI-generated works have become central to understanding how copyright law responds to emerging creative practices.
Taken together, these developments explain why artificial intelligence has emerged as a sustained focus area within intellectual property discourse. The issue is not limited to any single right or jurisdiction, but arises from the cumulative impact of AI across innovation, creativity, and IP administration. This broader context underpins international efforts—such as WIPO’s educational and policy-oriented initiatives—to facilitate informed discussion on how existing IP principles interact with rapidly advancing AI technologies.
Overview of WIPO’s Virtual Exhibition on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property
World Intellectual Property Organization’s virtual exhibition, titled “WIPO: AI and IP, A Virtual Experience,” was conceived as an online, interactive resource to explain how artificial intelligence is already influencing intellectual property systems across jurisdictions. Rather than functioning as a policy document or legal position paper, the exhibition was designed as an educational platform that combined explanations, real-world examples, and thematic narratives to make complex AI–IP issues accessible to a wide audience.
The exhibition was structured to guide visitors through multiple dimensions of the AI–IP relationship. It explored how AI technologies are used as tools within IP offices—such as in searching, classification, and translation—while also addressing AI as a subject of IP protection, particularly where AI contributes to inventions or creative works. By presenting these perspectives side by side, the exhibition highlighted the dual role of AI as both an enabler of IP administration and a driver of new legal questions.
A notable feature of the exhibition was its emphasis on practical illustrations rather than abstract theory. Visitors were introduced to scenarios involving AI-assisted invention, AI-generated creative outputs, and automated IP management systems, allowing them to see how legal concepts such as inventorship, authorship, and ownership may be challenged in real-world contexts. These themes closely align with broader discussions on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights and with analyses of how AI will change the IP industry as technology adoption accelerates.
The exhibition also reflected WIPO’s effort to address AI across multiple forms of intellectual property, rather than treating patents, copyrights, and trademarks in isolation. This cross-cutting approach mirrors the reality that AI-enabled products and services often engage several IP regimes simultaneously. Issues surrounding AI-assisted software development, for example, intersect with debates on software-related inventions and patent protection, while AI-generated artistic content raises questions examined in discussions on copyright ownership in AI-generated works.
Importantly, the virtual exhibition did not seek to prescribe solutions or propose harmonised legal outcomes. Instead, it served as a neutral explanatory space, encouraging informed understanding of how artificial intelligence interacts with existing IP frameworks and why these interactions are attracting sustained global attention. In doing so, the exhibition complemented WIPO’s wider role as a forum for dialogue and knowledge-sharing on emerging technologies and their implications for intellectual property systems worldwide.
Key Themes Highlighted in WIPO’s Virtual Exhibition on AI and IP
WIPO’s virtual exhibition on artificial intelligence and intellectual property was organised around a set of recurring themes that reflect how AI is already interacting with existing IP systems. Rather than isolating AI as a futuristic concern, the exhibition focused on present-day use cases and emerging legal questions, illustrating why AI has become relevant across multiple forms of intellectual property.
AI as a Tool for Intellectual Property Administration
One of the central themes of the exhibition was the growing use of artificial intelligence as an operational tool within IP systems. AI-based technologies are increasingly deployed for tasks such as prior art searching, patent and trademark classification, document translation, and data analytics. These applications are intended to assist examiners and administrators by improving efficiency, consistency, and accessibility of IP information.
The exhibition highlighted how such tools are already being adopted by IP offices worldwide, demonstrating that AI is not only a subject of IP protection but also an enabling technology within the IP ecosystem itself. This institutional use of AI aligns with broader developments discussed in relation to AI-assisted tools used by IP offices, particularly in the context of search and classification systems.
AI as a Contributor to Invention and Creation
Another prominent theme was the role of AI in inventive and creative processes. The exhibition examined scenarios in which AI systems assist humans in developing technical solutions, generating creative outputs, or optimising designs. These examples raised fundamental questions about how concepts such as inventorship and authorship should be understood when AI systems play a substantive role in the outcome.
In the patent context, the exhibition drew attention to the difficulty of applying traditional inventorship criteria—built around human mental activity—to AI-assisted or AI-driven innovation. In the creative sphere, similar challenges arise where AI-generated text, music, or visual works do not fit comfortably within existing copyright frameworks. These issues are central to ongoing discussions on artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights and the legal treatment of AI-generated outputs.
Blurring of Boundaries Between Different IP Rights
The exhibition also underscored how AI technologies tend to cut across multiple IP regimes simultaneously. A single AI-enabled product or service may involve patent-protected technical features, copyright-protected outputs, trademark-protected branding, and data-related considerations. This convergence complicates legal analysis, which has traditionally approached patents, copyrights, and trademarks as distinct silos.
By presenting AI-related examples that span multiple forms of IP, the exhibition illustrated why a fragmented approach may be inadequate for addressing AI-driven innovation. This cross-cutting perspective reflects broader debates on the treatment of software-related inventions and patent protection, as well as the overlap between technical functionality and creative expression in AI-enabled systems.
Policy Awareness Rather Than Prescriptive Solutions
Importantly, the exhibition did not seek to resolve these challenges or advocate specific legal reforms. Instead, it positioned itself as an awareness-building and explanatory initiative, presenting issues in a neutral manner to encourage informed discussion. The emphasis was on helping policymakers, practitioners, innovators, and the public understand where AI is already interacting with IP systems and why these interactions raise complex legal and policy questions.
Through this thematic approach, WIPO’s virtual exhibition reinforced the idea that artificial intelligence poses systemic questions for intellectual property law—questions that require careful examination across jurisdictions and disciplines, rather than immediate or uniform answers.
Global Policy Signals Emerging from WIPO’s AI and IP Initiatives
Beyond its educational role, WIPO’s engagement with artificial intelligence has reflected broader policy signals emerging at the international level. The virtual exhibition sits alongside a series of analytical and consultative efforts through which World Intellectual Property Organization has sought to map how existing intellectual property frameworks interact with rapidly advancing AI technologies. Collectively, these initiatives indicate that AI-related questions are no longer peripheral, but central to contemporary IP policy discussions.
One clear signal is the emphasis on principle-based assessment rather than immediate rule-making. WIPO’s materials consistently frame AI-related issues—such as inventorship, authorship, ownership, and liability—as questions that must be examined within the structure of existing IP law before considering legislative change. This approach reflects caution against premature harmonisation in an area where technological capabilities, national legal traditions, and policy priorities continue to diverge. Similar caution is visible in international discussions on international treaties and their influence on national IP laws, where consensus-building typically precedes formal norm-setting.
Another policy signal emerging from WIPO’s AI initiatives is the recognition that AI affects the entire IP lifecycle, not just rights creation. From the use of AI in research and development to its deployment in examination, enforcement, and portfolio management, AI is influencing how IP systems function operationally. This systems-level perspective aligns with broader debates on the future of intellectual property governance, particularly as automation and data-driven decision-making become more prominent within public institutions.
WIPO’s work also highlights the importance of cross-sector and cross-disciplinary dialogue. AI-related IP questions intersect with data governance, ethics, competition policy, and innovation policy, making siloed legal analysis increasingly inadequate. By situating AI within a wider innovation ecosystem, WIPO’s initiatives signal that effective responses will likely require coordination across policy domains and jurisdictions, rather than isolated changes within patent, copyright, or trademark law alone.
Finally, the global scope of WIPO’s engagement underscores that AI and IP challenges are inherently transnational. Differences in national approaches to AI inventorship, copyright ownership, and software-related protection already exist, and AI is amplifying these divergences. WIPO’s role, as reflected through its exhibition and policy-oriented activities, has therefore focused on facilitating shared understanding and informed dialogue, rather than prescribing uniform outcomes. This approach reinforces the view that the evolution of AI and IP law will be shaped incrementally, through continued international exchange and evidence-based policy development.
Public Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and IP Policy
In December 2019, the World Intellectual Property Organization initiated a public consultation process on artificial intelligence and intellectual property policy. The consultation was launched to gather structured feedback on an issues paper prepared by WIPO, which sought to identify and frame the most pressing questions likely to confront intellectual property policymakers as artificial intelligence continues to grow in technical capability and economic significance.
The consultation invited written submissions from a wide and diverse group of stakeholders, including governments, academic institutions, research organisations, industry participants, professional bodies, and legal practitioners. Contributors were encouraged to share perspectives on topics such as inventorship and authorship, ownership of AI-generated outputs, liability and accountability, and the use of artificial intelligence within IP administration systems. The objective was to ensure that policy discussions were informed by practical experience across jurisdictions and sectors, rather than being driven by isolated viewpoints.
According to WIPO’s published consultation records, more than 250 submissions were received from contributors around the world, reflecting the global relevance of AI-related IP issues. These submissions collectively highlighted the range of legal, technical, and policy considerations raised by artificial intelligence, as well as the absence of uniform approaches across national IP frameworks.
Among the submissions received was a response provided by Intepat IP Private Limited, submitted as part of the open consultation process. The submission formed one contribution within the broader body of stakeholder input considered by WIPO during its examination of AI and IP policy questions. The document submitted by Intepat IP is publicly available as part of WIPO’s consultation materials and can be accessed here:
By incorporating inputs from a wide range of contributors, WIPO’s consultation process underscored the organisation’s role as a global forum for dialogue on emerging technologies and intellectual property. The consultation complemented initiatives such as the virtual exhibition by ensuring that discussions on AI and IP were grounded in real-world perspectives and informed by the experiences of stakeholders operating within different legal and innovation ecosystems.
National and Regional Perspectives in the AI–IP Discourse
While initiatives led by World Intellectual Property Organization provide a global forum for discussion, the practical application of artificial intelligence–related IP principles ultimately takes place within national and regional legal frameworks. As a result, approaches to issues such as AI-assisted inventorship, protection of AI-generated outputs, and treatment of software-driven innovation vary across jurisdictions, reflecting differences in statutory language, judicial interpretation, and policy priorities.
In several jurisdictions, patent and copyright systems continue to emphasise human agency as a central requirement, even where AI plays a substantial role in the inventive or creative process. Courts and IP offices have generally assessed AI-related questions by applying existing legal tests, rather than creating AI-specific rules. This incremental approach mirrors the broader international caution reflected in WIPO’s initiatives, which prioritise understanding and dialogue over immediate regulatory intervention.
From an Indian perspective, discussions on artificial intelligence and intellectual property intersect closely with the treatment of software-related inventions and computer-implemented technologies. Indian patent law, for example, applies specific exclusions and technical-effect requirements when assessing inventions involving software and algorithms. As AI-driven systems often rely heavily on software and data processing, these standards have a direct bearing on how AI-related patent applications are examined and evaluated. These jurisdiction-specific considerations are explored further in analyses of software patents in India – an exclusive analysis, which examine how emerging technologies are assessed within existing legal boundaries.
At the same time, AI-related copyright questions—particularly those involving authorship and ownership of machine-generated content—continue to be assessed through conventional doctrines, pending clearer legislative or judicial guidance. Similar patterns can be observed in trademark and design law, where AI primarily influences how rights are created and managed, rather than fundamentally altering the underlying legal concepts.
Overall, the interaction between global dialogue and national implementation highlights a key feature of the AI–IP landscape: while artificial intelligence presents common challenges worldwide, legal responses remain shaped by local statutory frameworks and institutional practice. WIPO’s role, complemented by national-level interpretation and application, underscores the importance of continued coordination and knowledge-sharing as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in innovation and creative ecosystems.
Conclusion — Understanding Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property in a Global Context
The emergence of artificial intelligence as a transformative technology has brought renewed attention to how intellectual property systems operate and evolve. Through initiatives such as its virtual exhibition on artificial intelligence and intellectual property, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has sought to explain, in an accessible manner, the ways in which AI already interacts with patents, copyrights, trademarks, and IP administration systems.
Rather than advocating specific legal outcomes, WIPO’s approach has emphasised awareness, dialogue, and informed understanding. By combining educational resources, thematic exploration, and stakeholder consultation, these initiatives reflect an effort to situate AI-related IP questions within existing legal frameworks while acknowledging the technological changes underway. As artificial intelligence continues to advance and expand across sectors, such explanatory and consultative efforts remain essential for fostering shared understanding across jurisdictions and supporting thoughtful engagement with the future of intellectual property.
