Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Summary
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions, affirming a core principle of U.S. patent law. This guidance clarifies that only natural persons can be named as inventors on a patent application, even when an AI system is used as a tool in the invention process. This update simplifies the standard, emphasizing that the traditional legal test for inventorship applies universally. No separate or modified standard exists for AI-assisted work. This approach promotes clear, consistent patent protection for human innovation, offering inventors stability in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Key Takeaways
The USPTO’s new guidance clarifies how to correctly name inventors when using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to develop new technologies. By reading this article, you will learn:
- The fundamental legal standard for inventorship, which remains unchanged regardless of AI’s involvement.
- Why AI systems cannot be named as inventors on U.S. patent applications, citing the relevant U.S. Code and legal precedent.
- The specific role of an AI system in the invention process—it is considered a tool, not an inventor.
- How the USPTO’s new guidance aligns with a broader executive effort to promote American leadership in AI.
- Actionable steps to ensure compliance when filing patent applications involving AI assistance.
- The practical implications of the guidance for securing your intellectual property rights.
Table of contents
Prefer to watch instead? Check out the video below.
Navigating Patent Inventorship for AI-Assisted Inventions
I want to talk about a very important development from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO recently published revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions. This new guidance is not a brand-new law. Instead, it strongly reaffirms a bedrock principle of U.S. patent law. The key takeaway is simple: only a natural person—a human being—can be named as an inventor on a U.S. patent application.
The new guidance rescinds the USPTO’s prior guidance on this topic from February 2024 and brings clarity and consistency back to the inventorship standard.
Upholding Longstanding Legal Precedent
The law governing inventorship has not changed. The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions. This is true whether you created the invention using a simple sketch pad or a sophisticated AI system. The USPTO emphasizes that no new, separate, or modified standard applies to inventions where AI provided assistance.
U.S. patent law is very clear on this point. The Patent Act defines an “inventor” as “the individual . . . who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” This language is found in 35 U.S.C. § 100(f). The term “individual” refers to a natural person.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the nature of invention itself. The Supreme Court has stated that the term “‘invention’ in the Patent Act unquestionably refers to the inventor’s conception.” Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 60 (1988). Conception, by its very nature, is a mental act performed by a human mind. AI systems are not capable of this legal “conception” in the way a human is. They are sophisticated tools, but they lack the legal and philosophical requirement of human agency and understanding.
AI Systems are Tools, Not Co-Inventors
It is easy to see why confusion might arise. Modern AI systems, particularly generative AI, can produce impressive results. They can generate novel molecular structures, suggest new material compositions, or even write code that forms a key part of an invention. However, despite their advanced capabilities, the USPTO views AI systems as tools used by human inventors.
Think of it this way: A computer-aided design (CAD) program helps an engineer design a new engine part. The engineer is the inventor; the CAD program is the tool. Similarly, an AI system that suggests a solution to a technical problem is a tool. The human being who frames the problem, selects the AI system, interprets the AI’s output, recognizes the invention, and ultimately claims the invention is the true inventor.
Defining the Human Contribution
The new guidance presumes that the inventors named on the application are the actual, human inventors. This places the responsibility squarely on the applicants to ensure they meet the legal requirements.
When an AI system is involved, the core legal question remains: Did a human inventor significantly contribute to the conception of the invention? The human contribution must rise to the level of inventorship. This means the individual must have contributed to the claimed invention.
For a human to be a proper inventor, they must:
- Significantly contribute to the final conception of the claimed invention.
- Not simply recognize the invention after the AI has already conceived it.
If an AI system performs all the creative steps, and the human merely recognizes the result, then no human meets the inventorship standard. In that scenario, the invention is not patentable under current U.S. law because no human conceived it.
Practical Implications for Patent Applicants
This revised guidance offers stability, but it demands careful attention from applicants and patent attorneys like me. We must be rigorous in documenting the inventive process, especially when AI is used.
Documenting the Inventive Process
When you use an AI system in your research and development, you should meticulously document two things:
- The specific actions the human took. This includes how the human defined the input, trained or customized the model, posed the problem, or otherwise guided the AI to a solution.
- The human’s intellectual contribution to the output. This involves explaining how the human interpreted the AI’s results, recognized the inventive concept within that data, and made critical selections or modifications to arrive at the final claimed invention.
Simply having an AI system generate a list of potential compounds is not conception. Selecting one compound from that list without a reason may not be enough either. However, if the human uses their expertise to select a compound based on a newly conceived principle or modify the AI-suggested compound to overcome a known limitation, then a human contribution to conception exists.
Compliance and Due Diligence
It is important to ensure proper inventorship. Getting inventorship wrong can be fatal to a patent.
- Incorrect inventorship can lead to invalidity of the patent.
- The USPTO presumes that the inventors named are correct ; but this presumption is rebuttable if evidence shows otherwise.
Therefore, when preparing a patent application, you must perform due diligence. You must review the research records and have detailed discussions with the technical team to identify every natural person who contributed to the conception of the claimed invention. You should also clearly document that the AI system was simply a tool assisting the efforts of the human inventors.
Implementing Executive Order 14179
This new guidance is not an isolated policy move. It is part of a larger, coordinated effort by the U.S. government. The new guidance implements Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025. This Executive Order is titled “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.”
The goal of the Executive Order is to ensure that federal policies support and promote U.S. leadership in AI technology. This revised USPTO guidance aligns with that goal by:
- Providing certainty to inventors and companies. Certainty encourages investment in AI-assisted R&D.
- Maintaining the integrity of the U.S. patent system by sticking to established legal standards.
- Focusing the system on human creativity, which is the ultimate source of innovation and economic growth.
By clarifying that the traditional human inventorship standard applies, the USPTO prevents a legal vacuum or the creation of an overly complex, separate standard for AI. This simplified, consistent approach is intended to remove uncertainty that could otherwise hinder innovation. It makes it easier for U.S. companies to secure clear patent rights, which promotes domestic and international competitiveness.
You can review the full text of the revised guidance and the Executive Order using these links:
- Revised Inventorship Guidance: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-21457.pdf?utm_content=&utm_name=&utm_term=
- Executive Order 14179: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/?utm_content=&utm_name=&utm_term=
Securing Your Patent Rights in the AI Era
The rapid development of AI demands that we all pay close attention to patent law. The USPTO’s revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions makes the patent landscape much clearer. It assures inventors that the rules they know still apply. AI is a powerful tool. It accelerates the inventive process, but it does not replace the human mind required for legal inventorship.
I encourage every potential client to embrace AI for its incredible potential in research and innovation. However, I also stress the importance of understanding the legal boundaries. Meticulously document the human role in the conception of your AI-assisted invention. This careful documentation is the key to securing valid and enforceable patent protection for your intellectual property.
If you are developing a new technology with the assistance of an AI system, don’t wait until filing to think about inventorship. Let’s discuss your inventive process and ensure your documentation clearly establishes human contribution. This proactive approach is essential to protecting your innovation. Contact me today to schedule a consultation.
You might also want to read:
