Military AI and Intellectual Property Rights: Global Norms, International Treaties, and Emerging Legal Challenges

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence in military and defense systems. has grown significantly in the last decade, trans-forming the strategic landscape. Computing of prime ministers and creating a lot of innovation that is out of place in current IP structures. Military Artificial Intelligence is not like normal defense equipment that creates value; on the contrary, it creates value. This is done through algorithms, training techniques and software architecture. that are patentable, copyrightable and protectable as a trade secrets, while still being closely involved with the national security agenda. that do not comply with the norm of disclosure. This paper explores the crossovers In the field of military AI development and international IP law, and in particular, in terms of the sufficiency of the basic treaty instruments, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property - Rome Convention are among the treaties that address this question. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) governance initiatives include the WIPO Innovation Platform, the WIPO Cooperation Programme, and the WIPO Advisory Council. However, (WIPO) gave no attention to issues of ownership, protection, technology transfer, and cross-border enforcement issues specific to this area. By comparing and examining key state actors such as The United States, China, Israel, the European Union and Russia, The paper points out enduring legal deficiencies: The lack of an inventorship system. The lack of fit of the standard of AI assisted innovation, The use of national security carve-outs in multilateral treaties, and the absence of a definition of ’national security’ that is accepted by all parties. any coordinated system to curb IP infringement. Committed using state sponsored cyber means. The results indicate that although treaties already provide some protection, much remains to be done. Normative scaffold, there exists a lot of uncertainty in the law, Increased international collaboration (possibly based on a) framework agreement. is the first WIPO instrument dedicated to AI and defense innovation. To maintain both innovation incentives and innovation, global security stability.

Introduction

The text examines the intellectual property (IP) challenges associated with military artificial intelligence (AI) and the need for stronger legal frameworks to protect AI-based defense innovations. It explains that countries such as the United States, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, France, and India are investing heavily in military AI, creating concerns about ownership, protection, unauthorized use, reverse engineering, and international technology transfer.

Military AI differs from traditional defense technologies because it combines physical systems with intangible assets such as software code, AI models, training datasets, algorithms, and operational knowledge. Existing IP laws were developed before the AI era and often struggle to address issues like AI-generated inventions, autonomous decision-making systems, and classified military technologies.

The text discusses four major forms of IP protection:

1. Patents
   • Protect AI algorithms, software architectures, hardware systems, and autonomous technologies when they meet requirements such as novelty and industrial applicability.
   • Defense companies use patent portfolios for protection, licensing, and strategic advantage.
   • However, secrecy orders for national security can prevent public disclosure, creating tension between innovation protection and transparency.
2. Copyright
   • Protects software code, documentation, simulations, and technical materials.
   • A major challenge is determining ownership of AI-generated outputs because most copyright systems require human authorship.
   • Government–contractor ownership of AI-related intellectual property varies by national laws and contracts.
3. Trade Secrets
   • Often preferred for sensitive military AI assets such as training data, model weights, and operational techniques.
   • Trade secrets provide long-term protection but depend on maintaining confidentiality.
   • Cyber espionage and state-sponsored theft create major enforcement challenges.
4. Trademarks
   • Less important strategically but valuable commercially for defense AI products and companies.
   • Helps protect product identity and prevent misuse of defense technology branding.

The paper reviews international IP agreements, including:

• TRIPS Agreement: Provides global standards for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets but contains broad national security exceptions and lacks clear rules for AI inventions.
• Paris Convention: Supports international patent rights but does not adequately address classified military inventions.
• Berne Convention: Protects software and documentation but leaves unresolved questions about AI-created works.
• WIPO initiatives: Have explored AI and IP issues but have not created binding rules specifically for military AI.
• United Nations frameworks: Focus mainly on responsible AI use and autonomous weapons rather than IP protection.

The paper also compares national approaches:

• United States: Has the most developed military AI IP framework, combining patent systems, defense contracts, export controls, and agencies such as DARPA. Private defense companies actively develop and protect AI technologies.
• China: Uses a civil-military fusion approach where government coordination, state-supported research, and national security laws strongly influence AI ownership and technology control.

Conclusion

AI for military applications ultimately is an intellectual property issue as much as it is a strategic or tech one. The algorithms, Developed software systems, trained models and operational all the know-how that define modern defense AI capabilities. Bundles of intangible rights whose governance is on a different level. shapes both innovation incentives and international security dynamics. This paper has contended that there are a number of existing papers that have made such contributions. international IP framework is providing a. Only provide a partial necessary normative foundation Poor and growing inadequate response to challenges The unique nature of military AI, which can be tailored to specific tasks while simultaneously retaining its human-like qualities. The TRIPS Agreement and the Paris and Berne Conventions, The WIPO treaty system together with and the cover the However, the most important types of IP protection were drafted. without reference to AI and contain security exceptions who have opportunities for systematic exploitation of their width normative evasion. National approaches across the In addition to the United States, China, Israel and the European Union.Besides the United States, China, Israel and the European Union. The legal traditions of and Russia are different. postures that are not aligned strategically at the international level. Unresolved challenges with regard to AI authorship, AI support Inventorship, cross-border enforcement and the The context in which state-sponsored cyber activities take place is a normative vacuum. IP theft poses serious legal challenges. That will only be exacerbated by military AI systems that will proliferate. More efficient and widespread. There are more mechanisms for cooperation between the countries that are needed and Is possible, but requires political prioritization. until now, has not been captured in multilateral IP governance agendas. Future regulatory frameworks must reconcile the disclosure principle of IP rights and the the national security concerns of verve, innovation incentives of a competitive defense Economy that has accountability needs of International humanitarian principles, and sovereignty The interests of individual states in the collective Stable and predictable relationships with other countries are growing. IP order. These are problems that are solvable, but not, however, self-resolving ones.

References

[1] World Trade Organization, “Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),” Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, 1994. [2] World Trade Organization, “TRIPS Agreement, Article 73: Security Exceptions,” Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, 1994. [3] World Intellectual Property Organization, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Stockholm Act, 1883, last revised 1967. [4] World Intellectual Property Organization, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act, 1886, last revised 1971. [5] World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Conversation on In-tellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence: Revised Issues Paper, WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1 Rev., Geneva, 2020. [6] World Intellectual Property Organization, Report of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/47, Geneva, 2024. [7] Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, “Guiding Principles Affirmed by the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems,” CCW/GGE.2/2019/3, Geneva, 2019. [8] U.S. Department of Defense, “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy,” Washington, D.C., Feb. 2023. [9] U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Budget Overview: FY2024, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington, D.C., 2024. [10] E. B. Kania, Battlefield Singularity: Artificial Intelligence, Military Revolution, and China’s Future Military Power, Center for a New American Security, Washington, D.C., 2017. [11] P. Scharre, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War, W. W. Norton, New York, NY, 2018. [12] M. C. Horowitz, “Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power,” Texas Natl. Secur. Rev., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 36–57, 2018. [13] J. Abramson, “Trade secrets and the defense industrial base,” J. Natl. Secur. L. & Pol’y, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 75–102, 2011. [14] U.S. Congress, Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, 35 U.S.C. §§ 181–188, 1951. [15] Federation of American Scientists, “Invention Secrecy Activity,” FAS Project on Government Secrecy, Washington, D.C., 2023. [16] U.S. Department of State, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 C.F.R. Parts 120–130, current through 2023. [17] U.S. General Services Administration, “FAR Subpart 52.227: Rights in Data and Copyrights,” Federal Acquisition Regulation, current through 2023. [18] J. Pooley, Trade Secrets: The Other IP Right, WIPO Magazine, Geneva, 2013. [19] U.S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Announces Charges in Multiple Economic Espionage Cases,” Press Release, Washington, D.C., 2023. [20] Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 2023; Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents [2023] UKSC 49. [21] European Parliament and the Council of the EU, “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act),” Official Journal of the European Union, Jun. 2024. [22] European Parliament and the Council of the EU, “Directive 2009/24/EC on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs,” Official Journal of the European Union, May 2009. [23] U.S. Congress, Bayh-Dole Act (Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act), Pub. L. No. 96-517, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200–212, 1980. [24] Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, Order No. 29, Beijing, 2015. [25] D. Breznitz, Innovation and the State: Political Choice and Strategies for Growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 2007. [26] Anduril Industries, “Lattice: The AI-Powered Operating System for National Security,” Product Overview, Irvine, CA, 2023. [27] World Intellectual Property Organization, World Intellectual Property Indicators 2023, WIPO, Geneva, 2023. [28] Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent), Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part IV: Rights to Results of Intellectual Activity, Moscow, 2006, as amended. [29] A. P. Liff, “Cyberwar: A new ‘absolute weapon’? The proliferation of cyberwarfare capabilities and interstate war,” J. Strategic Stud., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 401–428, 2012. [30] M. N. Schmitt, Ed., Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2017. [31] N. McCallum, “Towards a WIPO instrument on artificial intelligence and intellectual property: Prospects and challenges,” IIC – Int. Rev. Intell. Prop. Competition L., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 145–178, 2024. [32] U.S. Government Accountability Office, F-35 Aircraft Sustainment: DOD Needs to Address Substantial Risks in the Sustainment Program, GAO-18-321, Washington, D.C., 2018. [33] UK Intellectual Property Office, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patents, Newport, Wales, 2021. [34] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 1: Digital Replicas, Washington, D.C., 2023.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Chandan G, Chiranthan K, Dishanth A M, Dr. Chitra B T. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.