Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae In Patent Case Over Human-AI Integration Technology

The Supreme Court has appointed Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar as Amicus Curiae in a patent case over an invention that claims to enhance human capabilities by integrating them with artificial intelligence (AI), creating what its inventor describes as a "Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg."

The invention, titled "Necktie Persona-Extender/Environment-integrator and method for Super-Augmenting a Persona to Manifest a Pan-Environment Super-Cyborg,"

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe issued notice on the petition as well as the delay condonation application.

The petition has been filed by inventor Caleb Suresh Motupalli. It challenges the Madras High Court's dismissal of his appeal against the Patent Office's rejection of his patent application.

Motupalli filed the Indian national phase patent application in June 2012.

Over the next several years, it underwent multiple rounds of examination. In April 2021, the Controller of Patents rejected the application, citing lack of enablement, lack of clarity, amended claims extending beyond the scope of the original claims, lack of inventive step, and non-patentability under the Patents Act.

He sought a review of the decision. After a fresh hearing, the controller rejected the application again in October 2021, prompting Motupalli to move the Madras High Court.

Arguing his case in person, Motupalli told the High Court that his invention offered a "beyond-AI" solution to what he described as "n-Entropy", the loss of human agency caused by advancing AI capabilities.

According to him, the invention proposed extending and augmenting a person's capabilities through integration with AI.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy first held that the appeal itself was not maintainable because no statutory appeal lies against an order passed in review under the Patents Act.

The High Court observed, "a statutory appellate remedy is not provided for against an order-in-review issued under Section 77(1)(f) of the Patents Act. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable under Section 117-A of the Patents Act."

Without prejudice to this finding, the Court also examined the case on merits. On the issue of sufficiency of disclosure, it held that the complete specification failed to enable a person skilled in the art to work the invention.

The High Court observed, "I find that the appellant has merely coalesced the disclosures and discussions in the patent and non-patent literature, which largely relate to harnessing AI capabilities for advancing human operations, to arrive at the claimed invention."

The court ultimately concluded that the complete specification did not adequately explain how the claimed technologies could achieve the promised persona extension and augmentation. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

Motupalli thereafter approached the Supreme Court. Along with the petition, he filed applications seeking condonation of delay and permission to appear and argue in person.

The court appointed Sukumar to assist it on "both the technical aspects and the law." It also permitted her to engage an instructing counsel of her choice.

The matter will next be heard on August 24, 2026.