Brain Interfacing Systems & the Interplay of IPRs

Brain Interfacing Systems & the Interplay of IPRs Who would have thought that the seldom witnessed science fiction movies introducing virtual augmented reality and deduction of data directly from the brain would be a part of the present reality affecting, or rather disrupting, every possible field of science extending to not just gaming and entertainment but also sectors like health care, nature conservation, natural security, and defense?

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) have a profound impact on the nature of rights exercised while safeguarding such inventions and also on the enforcement of these rights when infringed. However, there are still certain black boxes in the law that need to be addressed to cope with the technical and scientific developments that we shall be discussing in the later segments of this article.

What is Brain Interfacing?

'Brain Interfacing' is referred to a system wherein an external device, like a robot or a computer device, communicates with a human brain electrical activity, including the performance of the Central Nervous System (CNS). The systems majorly convert the reading of the CNS into an output that replaces, restores, enhances, supplements, or improves actual natural CNS output. Therefore, it is a communication pathway that aids in research, mapping, assistance, augmentation, and/or repair of human cognition. In technical terms, this system is often termed Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) or Brain-Machine Interface (BMI) as well.

Brain interfacing can be categorized into three parts, invasive, partially invasive, and

non-invasive.

Magnetic

Resonance

Imaging

(MRI)

and

Electroencephalography (EEG) scans are the most common examples of noninvasive brain-computer interfaces. Endovascular scans are partly invasive, and the

invasive brain-computer interface can be seen in Microelectrode Arrays (MEAs) devices.

Now all the above-cited theory is mostly medical science, simplified for the understanding of a man of ordinary prudence. However, what needs to be brought to attention is the medical revolution backed by such powerful technology.

Therefore, let us look at this technology from an angle of IPRs to understand the apparent protections and hidden deficits in law.

Intellectual Property (IP) to Safeguard Brain-Interfacing Systems Technology and IPRs are the two scales to maintain the balance of rights in favor of the proprietor. Let us consider the various alternatives IPRs provide us with:  Patent Protection: This is the most obvious form of IPR our minds are redirected to when thinking of such complex technology and science. Patents can be sought for anything novel and therefore non-obvious to the person skilled in the art. The same should also have applicability in the industry.

Therefore, whether the BCI is invasive, partly invasive, or noninvasive, Patent Protection should be opted for to safeguard the technology and have a first-mover edge over one's competitors in the market. Both the hardware and the software while incorporating them on a device, i.e., also known as computer-related inventions, can be safeguarded.  Design Protection: It safeguards the aesthetic features of an article usually related to the features of "shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article whether in two

dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms" utilizing manual or mechanical processes. Therefore, the look and feel of the article embracing the BCI technology can be safeguarded using designs.  Copyright Protection: It protects all creative works, inclusive of art, music, photographs, cinematographic works, and also computer programs.

Therefore, where the BCI is utilizing software that enables the effective communication between neural or electric impulses in the brain and a device, the same can be secured and protected using Copyright Protection.

Furthermore, research material developed from such interface like maps, patterns, or any literature pertaining to the same is copyrightable. This form of protection enables the most elaborate form of protection since the duration of protecting copyrighted materials is usually above the range of fifty years after the life of the creator, depending on the law of each respective jurisdiction.  Trademark Protection: Consumer attention, awareness, and loyalty for the product are availed to a great extent with the help of the trademark a product possesses. Therefore, trademarks can be utilized to enable identification and prevent competitors from gaining an undue advantage by piggy-backing on the reputation of the original proprietor. Seeking trademarks serves as a public notice to consumers and competitors, thereby enabling swifter and more efficient remedies in law in case of infringement or piracy.

Recent Patent Literature Utilizing BCI

Very recently, Ford filed for a patent with the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) for their brain-machine interface, which can anticipate and keep track of steering, acceleration, and applying brakes that allows the system to be later fed into the car's driver-assist systems. It would substitute the usual manual driving experience since the brainwave activity will be captured to predict the driver's next move. It is with the aid of a sensor-laden cap that the driver is required to wear for being able to read and monitor brain activity.

Even Microsoft has applied for a patent that is an interface enabling your brain to actually 'think' and function on a computer by not tapping any keys or clicking any buttons on the device.

Concluding Remarks Featuring the Underlying Issue The most crucial forms of protection for such technology include copyright and patent as they support the foundation of innovations, i.e., their creative elements.

For protecting the same, it is necessary to decide on the true and first inventor. The issue gets conveniently resolved when we talk about the basic invention enabling the brain and computer interaction. The issue here lies when as a result of such an interaction, which may or may not involve human intervention, it becomes arduous to categorize the inventor as many jurisdictions dotted on the map do not recognize a non-human entity to be an inventor. Therefore, a strict standard of burden of proof must be adhered to, tilting the balance towards the individual to ascertain whether the contribution is substantial and man-driven. Hence, the blank space in law not addressing the elephant in the room being AI as a creator has resulted in an attitude favoring corporate ownership of such creative works.

Therefore, what is essential is that the Patent Law must foster provisions and provide robust protection for safeguarding works utilizing AI in brain interfacing to safeguard them since the development of science and technology, specifically AI garnered creative inventions, are an inevitable part of the future. It is important since, in today's time, many inventions are a result of AI. They are now being made while ensuring that they have self-learning and adaptive capabilities, individual and autonomous thinking patterns, etc., like any human being.