Former R&D guy here chiming in with my two cents - this question depends on the issue of “original contribution”, that is, whether the lab work is novel and originates from the lab tech without instruction from the author(s), and result in a material advancement or novel contribution to the publication.

At the risk of oversimplification, if the lab tech does exactly as per the author(s) instructions, and is solely contracted to perform work, then the likelihood of having met the “novel contribution” requirement is low. For example, if Apple designed the M1 chip, drawing upon the original work of ARM, but subcontract the chip fabrication to TSMC, then TSMC cannot have an authorship claim if Apple were to file a patent or scientific publication on their M1 chip. However, there is nothing stopping ARM from improving their own design independent of Apple, and TSMC improving on their own chip making process and knowhow, which produces original and novel contributions.

But TSMC and ARM cannot, in my opinion, insist upon the role of an author or patent owner specifically in relation to the M1 chip.

These are of course my own take, as you’re probably familiar, it oftentimes not as clear cut as this, because scientific work is largely iterative and painstaking with many, many small tiny improvements and enhancements (and multiple orders more failures and mistakes) culminating into what we think are big, bold inventions.