Key Takeaways:
- AI-assisted inventions are patentable under U.S. law, but only a person can be named as an inventor. The legal standard is the same regardless of whether AI was used in the inventive process.
- Businesses using AI in R&D should develop and document a policy for using AI tools, make sure to document human contributions thoroughly, and be thoughtful about when and how they upload or share invention details with AI tools.
Artificial intelligence plays an increasing role in the development of new products and technologies. From drug discovery to materials science to consumer electronics, AI tools are accelerating the inventive process in ways that would have been difficult to imagine even a few years ago. For entrepreneurs, established businesses, and investors, this raises a practical question: can an invention that was developed with the help of AI be patented?
The short answer is yes. But doing so requires careful attention to how AI is used and, more importantly, how human inventors contribute to the process.
AI Is a Tool, Not an Inventor
In Thaler v. Vidal[1], the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Act limits the definition of “inventor” to “natural persons.” Dr. Stephen Thaler had filed patent applications listing his AI system, DABUS, developed as a “creativity machine” that generates a “spontaneous parade of ideas” and evaluates them for novelty as the sole inventor. The U.S. Patent Office refused the applications, the district court agreed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
The ruling was straightforward: under the statute, an inventor must be a natural person. AI systems, regardless of their sophistication, cannot be named as inventors on a patent application.
This ruling is consistent with the conclusion reached by patent offices and courts in most other countries where Dr. Thaler also attempted to seek patent protection for inventions developed by DABUS.
The USPTO’s Revised Guidance Reinforces Traditional Standards
In November 2025, the USPTO issued Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions. The revised guidance makes clear that there is no separate or modified inventorship standard for AI-assisted inventions. The same legal framework applies to all inventions, whether AI was part of the development process or not.
The revised guidance underscores that the standard for inventorship is still “conception,” which the courts have long defined as the formation in the mind of the inventor of a “definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” The inventor must have a specific, settled idea of the solution.
A general research goal or a prompt fed into an AI model may not meet this standard. For instance, if an AI tool generates a novel concept and a human simply adopts it without further intellectual contribution, there may be no qualifying inventor.
The revised guidance also clarifies that the Pannu factors, which address joint inventorship among multiple natural persons, do not apply when only one human is involved alongside an AI tool. Because AI is not eligible to be named as an inventor or co-inventor, AI is treated as an instrument used by a human inventor, comparable to laboratory equipment, computer software, or research database.
Practical Guidance for Businesses Using AI in R&D
For companies incorporating AI into their innovation processes, several steps can help protect patentability and reduce risk:
Develop and document a company policy for the use of AI tools
Businesses should establish clear guidelines governing how and when AI tools are used in R&D, including which tools are approved, how data is handled, and how interactions with AI are logged. The policy should define permitted uses of AI tools, including with respect to R&D activities that may lead to developing inventions. For example, the policy may state that AI tools should be prompted using proper constraints that prevent the tool from “inventing,” such as “do not guess or infer beyond what is known” and “do not use prior knowledge or assumptions.”
Document human contributions at every stage
Maintain clear records showing how each named inventor conceived of the invention, directed the AI tool, evaluated its outputs, and refined the solution. This documentation would be helpful if inventorship is ever challenged.
Understand the disclosure risks
Sharing invention details with a public AI tool that lacks adequate confidentiality and security protections, may constitute a public disclosure. In the United States, inventors have a one-year grace period to file for patent protection subsequent to a public disclosure, but most foreign countries do not. Using a private AI tool and, when appropriate, filing a provisional patent application before using AI tools on sensitive concepts is a sound practice.
Like the technology itself, the legal issues and guidance surrounding AI-assisted inventions continue to develop. For businesses that use AI thoughtfully and document their inventive processes with care, patent protection remains available and valuable.
[1] 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Subscribe for News and Updates
