USPTO Clarifies AI Cannot Be Named as Patent Inventor, Updates Guidelines for AI-Assisted Innovations

US patent office says generative AI is equivalent to other tools in inventors' belts

While generative AI systems cannot be considered inventors under US patent laws, the US Patent and Trademark Office has updated its guidelines on how they can be used in the process of creating innovations. The agency's director, John Squires, said in a notice obtained by Reuters that the USPTO deems genAI to be "analogous" to other tools that inventors might use in their process, including lab equipment, software and research databases. "AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors," Squires wrote. "They may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention." The notice [PDF], which is set to be published in the Federal Register on November 28, notes that there's no separate process for evaluating whether an AI-assisted invention qualifies for a patent. "When multiple natural persons are involved in creating an invention with AI assistance, the traditional joint inventorship principles apply," Squires added. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that "AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application (or issued patent) and that only natural persons can be inventors." There's no change to that stance under the latest USPTO guidelines. But the updated rules do offer more clarity as to whether things like new medications that are developed with the help of genAI systems can be patented.

Can AI Be Listed as a Patent Inventor? USPTO Says No - Phandroid

If you've been using AI tools to develop your next big app idea or tech innovation, here's something you need to know. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued revised guidelines on November 26, 2025, making it crystal clear that AI systems cannot be named as inventors on patent applications. Instead, the USPTO AI inventor guidelines treat generative AI as a tool, similar to lab equipment or software, rather than a creator. The new guidance scraps the USPTO's February 2024 AI inventorship rules, backing up Federal Circuit precedent from Thaler v. Vidal that only natural persons can be inventors. This means every patent claim requires significant human conception and contribution. However, AI-assisted inventions remain patentable if a human significantly contributes to every claim. For developers working on Android apps, Chrome extensions, or any software project where AI helps generate code or solve problems, this clarifies ownership. You remain the inventor even when ChatGPT writes functions or AI tools suggest algorithms. The key is documenting your human input throughout the process. The guidelines implement Executive Order 14179 from January 2025 to promote US AI leadership by removing prior barriers. This applies equally to utility patents, design patents, and plant patents. The shift treats AI more like Android Studio or other development tools rather than a collaborative partner. For inventors and companies, this changes how you document your work. You'll need to prove human roles in AI workflows, like prompt engineering, refining AI outputs, or selecting which AI-generated solutions to implement. Think of it like showing your creative decisions when publishing apps to prove authorship. One important caveat involves global priority claims. U.S. patent applications can't claim priority from foreign AI-only inventor filings. Only shared human inventors qualify, which affects multinational research and development teams. The bottom line? Your AI tool might help generate code, design interfaces, or solve technical problems, but you're still the inventor who owns the patent rights. Just make sure you document your human contribution at every stage, from initial concept to final implementation.

US Patent Office Says AI Cannot Be Listed as Inventor

* New USPTO guidance treats AI as a tool, not a patent inventor * Previous 2024 joint-inventor draft has now been rescinded * AI is also not eligible for joint inventorship patents The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new guidelines clarifying how inventions developed with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and tools will be treated under the US patent law. A notice regarding this change to the patent guidelines was published on Friday, highlighting that AI-assistent inventions do not quality the AI system itself to be treated as the inventor. The regulator highlighted that AI systems are viewed as tools and equipments, and they cannot be named in a patent application. USPTO Shares New AI-Related Patent Guidelines In a notification issued on Friday, the USPTO stated revised patent guidelines for AI-assisted inventions, highlighting that the technology will no longer be evaluated under a separate standard. Now, for inventorship, the same rules as traditional inventions will apply to AI systems. The patent watchdog also said that generative AI systems must be viewed as "tools" used by human inventors, not as inventors themselves. Only a human being who conceived the claimed invention may be named on the patent. "AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors. They are analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process[..]They may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention," the notification stated. The previously issued guidance from February 2024, which had considered applying a joint-inventor standard when AI is involved, has now been rescinded. The USPTO formally stated that the so-called "Pannu factors" (three criteria from the court case Pannu v. Iolab Corp), used historically to determine whether multiple human co-inventors qualify, do not apply when only one human inventor is involved and AI assistance is used. Importantly, the agency emphasised there is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions. Examiners will evaluate inventive contributions using existing criteria, focusing on human conception of the core inventive idea and any improvements being technically described, rather than on the role of AI in generating drafts or suggestions. Further, while AI assistance is not prohibited, the burden remains on applicants to demonstrate that human creativity and decision-making produced the invention. Generic use of AI tools for drafting, ideation, or data processing does not automatically translate to inventorship or patent eligibility.

US Sets New Rules for Patents Involving AI | PYMNTS.com

By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. In guidance released Wednesday and scheduled for publication on Friday, USPTO Director John Squires emphasized that generative AI should be treated similarly to longstanding research tools such as laboratory equipment and software. Per Reuters, the notice states that these systems "may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention." The agency also wrote: "When one natural person is involved in creating an invention with the assistance of AI, the inquiry is whether that person conceived the invention under the traditional conception standard." The USPTO reiterated that AI itself cannot be named as an inventor under U.S. law, echoing its earlier position that only human beings can hold that designation, according to Reuters. Related: Anthropic's Discovery of Autonomous AI Espionage Raises Legal and Regulatory Questions The guidance also moves away from a previous approach used under former President Joe Biden's administration. That earlier method relied on standards typically applied to determine whether multiple individuals qualify as joint inventors. Instead, the updated framework makes clear that all inventions -- whether involving AI or not -- are subject to the same inventorship rules. "The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions, regardless of whether AI systems were used in the inventive process," the notice said on Wednesday. "There is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions."