This article sheds light on brain interfacing systems from the angle of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) to understand the apparent protections and hidden deficits in law.

1. 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?

2. '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 non-
invasive brain-computer interfaces. Endovascular scans are partly invasive, and the

3. 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 non-
invasive, 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.