arXiv:2601.17892v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence's rapid integration with intellectual property rights necessitates assessment of its impact on trade secrets, copyrights and patents. This study addresses lacunae in existing laws where India lacks AI-specific provisions, creating doctrinal inconsistencies and enforcement inefficacies. Global discourse on AI-IPR protections remains nascent. The research identifies gaps in Indian IP laws' adaptability to AI-generated outputs: trade secret protection is inadequate against AI threats; standardized inventorship criteria are absent. Employing doctrinal and comparative methodology, it scrutinizes legislative texts, judicial precedents and policy instruments across India, US, UK and EU. Preliminary findings reveal shortcomings: India's contract law creates fragmented trade secret regime; Section 3(k) of Indian Patents Act blocks AI invention patenting; copyright varies in authorship attribution. The study proposes harmonized legal taxonomy accommodating AI's role while preserving innovation incentives. India's National AI Strategy (2024) shows progress but legislative clarity is imperative. This contributes to global discourse with AI-specific IP protections ensuring resilience and equitable innovation. Promising results underscore recalibrating India's IP jurisprudence for global alignment.

arXiv:2601.06048v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper examines the admissibility of AI-generated forensic evidence in criminal trials. The growing adoption of AI presents promising results for investigative efficiency. Despite advancements, significant research gaps persist in practically understanding the legal limits of AI evidence in judicial processes. Existing literature lacks focused assessment of the evidentiary value of AI outputs. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether AI-generated evidence satisfies established legal standards of reliability. The methodology involves a comparative doctrinal legal analysis of evidentiary standards across common law jurisdictions. Preliminary results indicate that AI forensic tools can enhance scale of evidence analysis. However, challenges arise from reproducibility deficits. Courts exhibit variability in acceptance of AI evidence due to limited technical literacy and lack of standardized validation protocols. Liability implications reveal that developers and investigators may bear accountability for flawed outputs. This raises critical concerns related to wrongful conviction. The paper emphasizes the necessity of independent validation and, development of AI-specific admissibility criteria. Findings inform policy development for the responsible AI integration within criminal justice systems. The research advances the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 16 by reinforcing equitable access to justice. Preliminary results contribute for a foundation for future empirical research in AI deployed criminal forensics.

arXiv:2512.14330v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI revolutionizes transportation through autonomous vehicles (AVs) but introduces complex criminal liability issues regarding infractions. This study employs a comparative legal analysis of primary statutes, real-world liability claims, and academic literature across the US, Germany, UK, China, and India; jurisdictions selected for their technological advancement and contrasting regulatory approaches. The research examines the attribution of human error, AI moral agency, and the identification of primary offenders in AV incidents. Findings reveal fragmented regulatory landscapes: India and the US rely on loose networks of state laws, whereas the UK enacted the pioneering Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. Germany enforces strict safety standards, distinguishing liability based on the vehicle's operating mode, while China similarly aims for a stringent liability regime. The study concludes that globally harmonized legal standards are essential to foster technological innovation while ensuring minimum risk and clear liability attribution.