How an appeal changed the way the USPTO assesses AI patents under the US Patent Act, signaling a shift toward more favorable treatment of AI and ML inventions
Context & Ripple Effects
The USPTO’s reported reassessment follows its guidance treating generative AI as a tool for human inventors, preserving the requirement that a person—not an AI system—be named as inventor.
That distinction has been central since a federal court held that AI could not be listed as an inventor under US patent law. The appeal-driven change matters because it concerns how AI and ML inventions themselves are evaluated, rather than who may claim inventorship.
First-order effects
- AI and ML patent applicants face a more favorable USPTO assessment framework following the appeal, potentially improving the treatment of qualifying claims.
- Patent counsel must separate claims to AI-enabled inventions from inventorship claims: the latter remains bounded by the USPTO’s human-inventor position.
Second-order effects
- Companies developing AI systems may put greater value on US patent filings and on claim drafting that demonstrates a patent-eligible technical invention rather than merely identifying AI as the inventor.
- The shift gives applicants and examiners a new appeal-related reference point, likely concentrating disputes on the boundaries of the revised assessment rather than on AI inventorship alone.
Third-order effects
- If the approach is applied consistently, US AI patent policy could become more accommodating toward protecting AI-enabled technical work while retaining human accountability for inventorship.
- The pattern points to AI law evolving through narrower administrative and appellate interpretations, rather than a wholesale recognition of autonomous AI inventors.
The trend: AI intellectual-property policy is moving toward protecting human-led AI-enabled inventions while keeping legal authorship and inventorship attached to people.