AI and Inventorship in the U.S.: A Short Guide

Can a business patent an invention developed using artificial intelligence? Potentially, yes. Using AI does not, by itself, prevent patent protection. But only human beings can be named as inventors, and the key question remains whether the human contributors conceived the invention claimed in the patent application. For businesses using AI in research and development, the priority is to identify and document that human conception.^[1]

AI Is a Tool, Not an Inventor

Under U.S. law, an AI system cannot be an inventor or joint inventor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed the human-inventor requirement in Thaler v. Vidal. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) treats AI systems as tools, analogous to laboratory equipment, software, and research databases, even when they generate ideas. The relevant inquiry concerns the people using those tools, not the sophistication of the technology.^[2]

The Focus Is Conception

Inventorship turns on “conception:” forming a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. A general objective or research plan is not enough. The idea must be sufficiently settled that a person of ordinary skill could put it into practice without extensive research or experimentation. The analysis is fact-specific and tied to the claimed invention.^[3]

For example, consider an engineer who develops a specific device architecture and uses AI to model its performance. The analysis would focus on whether the engineer conceived the claimed architecture. By contrast, if someone gives an AI tool a broad objective and adopts its proposed solution, the business should not assume that operating the tool establishes inventorship. Counsel should examine what the person actually conceived and when. These are illustrations, not automatic rules: neither prompting nor accepting an output answers the legal question by itself.^[4]

Do Not Rely on Outdated Guidance

The USPTO’s November 2025 guidance rescinded its February 2024 AI-inventorship guidance in full. While caselaw on this issue is likely to evolve, as of the date of this article, there is no separate or modified inventorship standard for AI-assisted inventions. Where one human uses AI, the inquiry is traditional conception, not whether the human made a “significant contribution” relative to the AI. Where several humans collaborate, ordinary joint-inventorship principles, including the Pannu factors, determine which people qualify. According to the Pannu factors, each inventor must “(1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.” AI is not another member of that inventive team.^[5]

Practical Steps for Businesses

• Record the human contribution. Update invention-disclosure forms to ask who developed the specific solution, what the human(s) contributed, what AI contributed, and how the work evolved. Preserve dated technical notes, relevant prompts and outputs, design decisions, and experimental records. The aim is to establish conception, not simply to show that a human supervised the project.
• Review inventorship against the claims. Ask patent counsel to map the human contributions to the proposed claims and revisit that assessment when claims change. Do not assume that every project participant, manager, or AI prompt developer should be named.
• Protect confidential information. Use approved AI tools and review their retention, training, and confidentiality terms before entering unpublished technical information. Align evidence-preservation practices with the business’s security and retention policies.
• Escalate uncertain cases early. If the records do not clearly identify human conception, seek advice before filing. Do not select a convenient human name merely because the application needs an inventor.

The Takeaway

The question is not simply, “Was AI used?” It is, “Which human beings conceived the claimed invention?” AI-assisted inventions remain subject to the ordinary inventorship rules. Businesses should build a clear record of human conception and perform a claim-specific inventorship assessment before filing.

This article provides general information on U.S. patent inventorship, not legal advice on any particular invention.