ACIPR Logo

Alliance Center for
Intellectual Property Rights


PATENTING OCEAN TECH: IP CHALLENGES IN AUTONOMOUS SHIP DESIGNS

April 15, 2025

*Ms. Aadhya Sakhuja

INTRODUCTION

The global maritime industry is going through a wave of technological transformation in this era of advancements with the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and Internet of Things (IoT) to ship designs. As the innovation sails ahead, where satellite and computer based technology is taking over the maritime vessels helping in automation promoting navigation and operation with minimal or zero human intervention, adding to operational efficiency, safety, and environmental sustainability; it brings a challenge to the realm of intellectual property. The traditional patent laws designed to protect inventions with tangible outcomes, where the correlation between the inventor, invention, and its utility was direct and measurable lacks in governing the digital and tech advanced non- tangible outcomes that is AI algorithms, sensor fusion systems, data driven decision making software, etc. creating a legal paradox as the invention itself, its commercially valuable assets, its features do not qualify for protection under the patent law. As stated by Lord Denning, 'Law must not stand still while the world moves on', the patent law needs the evolution to keep pace with the tide of evolution in ocean tech in order to sail and not sink.

THE INNOVATION-LIMITATION PARADOX IN AUTONOMOUS SHIP DESIGN

Where the laws globally are still dealing with inventions at industrial level may it be the Indian Patents Act, 1970 which defines invention to be a new product or process capable of industrial application under S.2(1)(j). Even though there exists organisation like World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and conventions like Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), 1970, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, and European Patent Convention (EPC), there is no amendment in the dynamics of patent law, the algorithm still being restricted to traditional inventions which clearly discourage and disincentivize innovation.

The Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) designed with a sophisticated fusion of hardware and software, the value of the invention not lying merely in the mechanical structure or physical components but also in the code, algorithms, etc., strains the principles of ownership and inventorship under patent law. With the lack of clear legal recognition to digital inventions and the ongoing debate on the IP rights of AI outputs, a serious legal vacuum emerges as the law is neither evolving and providing protection to the autonomous technologies nor is accepting AI work to be treated and honoured with same entitlements as human work. The dilemma in Thaler v. Vidal(2022), where the Federal Court ruled that only natural persons can be named as inventors, and in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l  (2014), where the Supreme Court held that implementing an abstract idea on a computer does not make it patentable not only dishonours the entire innovation, creativity, labour, etc. of a work on mere grounds of artificial intelligence but also affects the inventions leaving them unprotected, vulnerable to risks and with the blurred line of ownership.

TOWARDS THE WAVE OF PATENTS LAW REFORM

To bridge the gap between the legal frameworks and technological reality, and for the utilization of maritime technological advancements, it is a need to amend the patent law, adding algorithmic, software driven, and AI-generated outputs to the scope of invention, to include intangible digital assets along with industrial application. The dispute of not recognizing artificial inventions as AI cannot be equivalent to human intelligence is turning against human intelligence as well, given the fact that AI is not working on itself; rather it is the human intelligence developing, training, and refining these systems which is not being protected merely on grounds of the final output being associated with AI. Such a restrictive interpretation not only undermines the efforts of investors but also discourages future investment and research in autonomous technologies, the technologies which have demonstrably proven to be environmentally sustainable as reduces fuel consumption, minimizes emissions, and enhances route optimization, as well as have a risk management perspective as autonomous systems significantly lower the probability of human error given the AI-enabled collision avoidance systems, automatic emergency detection, and machine learning algorithms which work better than the human-run mechanisms.

Reaching to a legal middle ground where the human overseeing, programming or training, the AI is recognized as a legal inventor for patent purposes is a needed solution to effectively utilize the MASS, the tech-operated maritime ships. It can be ensured by introducing new classes for autonomous systems within patent law, specifically in sectors where software-driven autonomy is central, maritime being one of the major sectors. Recognizing this gap, international organizations that govern maritime affairs and innovation such as WIPO, International Maritime Organization (IMO), should collaborate to develop and adopt a multilateral treaty or an international code that focuses on intellectual property ownership, enforcement, and licensing specific to autonomous and AI-integrated technologies. Such an instrument would help harmonize standards and ensure that the intellectual labor, creativity, and technical expertise embedded in the AI-generated innovations are acknowledged without conferring parenthood or inventorship status on AI itself.

CONCLUSION

The seas may be vast and unpredictable, but the course of technological process is clear and precise, based on autonomy, intelligence, and interconnectivity. As MASS continue to revolutionize the maritime domain, the traditional legal framework rooted in the industrial era fails to keep pace with the evolution. In the current world where technology no longer sails under human command alone, the law must as well learn to navigate unexplored waters. The current patent laws, by denying recognition to the actual creators or system behind, the automated breakthroughs, risk disincentivizing innovation, is visibly causing legal ambiguity.  As stated by Justice Benjamin Cardozo that ‘the law must be stable but it must not stand still,’ the non-acceptance of artificial intelligence to law reflects on the stagnation and non-adaptability. The future of maritime industry depends not only on the advanced ship design or sophisticated AI but equally on the readiness of law to accept and legitimize the process as the challenge is not merely of the acceptance of law but of the protection of the innovation as well as the clarity over the inventorship and ownership of the innovation. Without this shift, the law risks becoming an anchor that holds back the tides of progress, rather than the compass that guides innovation safely into the future.

REFRENCES:

  1. Packer v. Packer, [1954] P. 15.
  2. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_895_2016.pdf (last visited Apr. 02, 2025).
  3. Patent Cooperation Treaty, June 19, 1970, 28 U.S.T. 7645, 1160 U.N.T.S. 231.
  4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
  5. European Patent Convention, Oct. 5, 1973, 1065 U.N.T.S. 199.
  6. Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
  7. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
  8. INT’L. MARITIME ORGANIZATION, https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/environment/pages/2023-imo-strategy-on-reduction-of-ghg-emissions-from-ships.aspx (last visited Apr. 03, 2025).
  9. DNV, Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships: A New Era of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas (2023).
  10. International Maritime Organization (IMO), Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) (2021).
  11. Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 98 (1921).

Author:
* Ms. Aadhya Sakhuja
4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student, Alliance School of Law, Alliance University, Bengaluru

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of the Alliance Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (ACIPR) and the Centre does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.