On 26 August 2026, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) opened a public consultation on how Singapore’s intellectual property regime should respond to artificial intelligence. The consultation runs until 5pm on 22 October 2026 and covers two areas of law: copyright and patents. Businesses that develop, deploy or rely on AI tools — as well as creators, inventors and IP owners — have a direct interest in the outcome.
Why This Consultation Matters
Singapore modernised its Copyright Act in 2021 to introduce a computational data analysis (“CDA”) exception, which permits copying works for data-driven activities such as machine learning, subject to safeguards. That exception was designed before the current wave of generative AI, and MinLaw and IPOS are now reviewing whether it — and the broader IP framework — remains fit for purpose as AI training, AI-generated output and AI-assisted invention become more common.
This is not Singapore’s first engagement on the topic. MinLaw and IPOS have run roundtable discussions with industry, rights owners, technology companies and legal practitioners since 2025, and IPOS has already published explainers and supplemental examination guidance on AI-related copyright and patent issues. This consultation is the next, more formal step, seeking broader public input before any legislative change is considered.
Copyright: Three Areas Under Review
The copyright portion of the consultation focuses on three issues:
- Certainty and accountability in AI training. This includes whether the scope of the CDA exception is sufficiently clear for generative AI and other emerging uses, how “lawful access” and rights-owner safeguards (such as paywalls and contractual terms) should operate, and how the Government might support non-legally binding technical measures, such as machine-readable opt-outs.
- Copyright risk in AI deployment and use. This addresses how liability for AI-generated infringing output should be assessed among AI developers, deployers and end users, including scenarios involving unauthorised reproduction, communication to the public, and authorisation liability — and how these questions apply differently to agentic AI systems that act with greater autonomy.
- Human creativity in AI-assisted works. Singapore’s courts require human authorship for copyright protection. The consultation asks how human contribution — through prompting, selection, arrangement and post-generation editing — should be evidenced and recognised so that genuinely creative AI-assisted works can be distinguished from largely AI-generated content.
Patents: Two Areas Under Review
On the patent side, the consultation focuses on:
- Inventorship across human-AI interactions. Singapore’s Patents Act requires a human inventor, a position reinforced by the rejection of the DABUS applications (which named an AI system as inventor). The consultation explores how existing inventorship principles apply across a spectrum of human-AI collaboration — from problem formulation and AI system configuration, to selection from AI-generated outputs, to human modification of AI-generated technical solutions — and sets out illustrative drug-discovery scenarios to frame the discussion.
- AI-generated prior art. As generative AI can produce large volumes of technical disclosures at speed, the consultation seeks views on whether and how such disclosures should be treated as prior art for the purposes of novelty and inventive step, and on related practical issues such as quality, enablement and the growing burden of prior art searches.
Singapore’s Approach So Far
Two principles have emerged consistently from earlier engagement and are reflected throughout the consultation paper. First, Singapore’s copyright regime remains human-centric: copyright protection requires a causal connection between human intellectual effort and the final work, with generative AI treated as a tool that augments — rather than replaces — human creativity. Second, only a natural person can be named as an inventor under the Patents Act, though the consultation acknowledges that assessing the sufficiency of human contribution becomes more complex as AI takes on a greater role in the inventive process.
How to Respond
Submissions can be made via FormSG (separate forms for copyright and patent feedback) or by email to MinLaw, and should identify the specific section being addressed together with supporting reasons. Parties seeking confidential treatment for proprietary or commercially sensitive information must mark this clearly in a separate annex. The deadline for submissions is 5pm on 22 October 2026.
Why This Matters for Your Business
Organisations that train, deploy or use AI tools — and creators or inventors whose work intersects with AI — should consider how the outcome of this consultation could affect their risk exposure, licensing arrangements, IP strategy and compliance obligations. Early engagement in the consultation process is an opportunity to help shape rules that will govern AI-related IP in Singapore for years to come.
Speak to Our Team
OTP Law advises businesses, creators and innovators on copyright, patent and AI-related legal risk in Singapore. If you would like assistance assessing how this consultation may affect your organisation, or in preparing a submission to MinLaw and IPOS, contact OTP Law today to speak with our team.
