USPTO Clarifies AI Cannot Be Named as Patent Inventor in New Guidelines

USPTO Issues Definitive Stance on AI Inventorship

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released comprehensive new guidelines clarifying that artificial intelligence systems cannot be named as inventors or co-inventors on patent applications. The guidance, published on November 28, 2024, treats AI systems as tools rather than creative entities, fundamentally reshaping how AI-assisted innovations will be evaluated under U.S. patent law 1

1

According to USPTO Director John Squires, AI systems "are analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process." The guidance explicitly states that "artificial intelligence systems, regardless of their sophistication, cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors on a patent application, as they are not natural persons" 2

2

Superseding Previous Guidelines

The new guidelines completely replace the USPTO's previous AI inventorship rules published in February 2024, which had considered applying a joint-inventor standard when AI systems were involved. The updated approach eliminates any separate evaluation process for AI-assisted inventions, instead applying traditional inventorship principles across all patent applications 5

5

Under the revised framework, when multiple people collaborate on an invention with AI assistance, the office will apply traditional joint-inventorship principles, including the established "Pannu factors" from the court case Pannu v. Iolab Corp. However, these factors only apply when multiple human inventors are involved, not when a single human works with AI assistance 1

1

Practical Implications for Inventors

For inventors and companies utilizing AI tools in their development processes, the guidelines provide crucial clarity on ownership and documentation requirements. The rules establish a clear framework: human conception plus AI assistance equals patentable invention, while AI-generated ideas without human input cannot be patented 3

3

Inventors must now focus on documenting their human contributions throughout the AI-assisted invention process. This includes demonstrating roles in prompt engineering, refining AI outputs, and selecting which AI-generated solutions to implement. The burden remains on applicants to prove that human creativity and decision-making produced the core inventive concept 4

4

Related Stories

US Patent and Trademark Office Bans Internal Use of Generative AI Tools

US Supreme Court declines AI-generated art copyright case, upholding human authorship requirement

India Rejects AI Authorship in DABUS Copyright Case, Sparking Debate on AI-Generated Artwork Protection

US Appeals Court Rejects Copyright for AI-Generated Art, Affirming Human Authorship Requirement

International Context and Legal Criticism

The USPTO's position aligns with similar stances taken by other major patent offices worldwide. The UK Supreme Court rejected computer scientist Stephen Thaler's attempts to patent inventions using his AI system DABUS as the inventor, and similar rejections occurred in the European Union. This international consensus reflects a coordinated approach to maintaining human-centric patent systems 1

1

However, the decision has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue it may create enforcement challenges. Stanford Law School Professor Mark Lemley warned that the approach could lead to applicants misrepresenting AI involvement in their inventions. "In practice, I suspect this means applicants will lie about who made AI-generated inventions, the PTO will let them, and those patents will be in trouble if and when they are enforced in court," Lemley stated 1

1