Patent Lodge

On November 26, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced revised guidance for determining inventorship when involving Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions. The guidance continues with longstanding inventorship principles, in that only natural persons can be named as inventors on patent applications. However, the USPTO is now viewing AI systems/tools in the same manner as other traditional equipment or tools used by inventors in developing ideas (such as textbooks, lab equipment, software tools, etc.). Essentially, the USPTO is now carrying forth a similar standard in determining inventorship, even when AI systems had been used in the inventive process.

This revised outlook regarding AI-assisted inventions departs dramatically from the guidance previously provided in 2024, by which the USPTO seemed to invoke special or differing consideration. Particularly, that guidance required “significant human contributions” with respect to AI-assisted inventions, which seemed to imply an inherent over-reliance on AI systems as compared to other traditional equipment or tools used by inventors. In other words, the use of AI systems had been viewed as significantly impactful relating to development, and thereby more prone to adversely affect inventorship.

In summary, as part of its new AI outlook, the USPTO is now acknowledging that not only can AI systems be used by designers in ways so as to not jeopardize inventorship (which is not new), but that those systems be viewed in similar manner to equipment/tools that have been traditionally used by designers in developing ideas. In doing so, the USPTO has adopted a seemingly more pro-patentee stance relating to AI-assisted inventions, likely to reduce inventorship issues for applications with claimed inventions that were AI-assisted.

Given the above-noted backdrop, what can be some best practices moving forward for inventors using AI systems? In keeping with traditional themes, it seems good advice to Keep Calm and Carry On. Back in 2024 when we reported the initial guidance from the USPTO on AI-assisted inventions, we noted the value in delineating inventor contributions from AI system contributions, and this seems to still be sound strategy. In turn, one would be able to offer corroborating evidence if ever needing to defend inventorship.

The cynic would say there is now less need for concern when using AI systems/tools. However, keeping a log and detailed summary relating to inventive contributions would not only still prove fruitful if ever a USPTO challenge, but potentially even more so if such challenge were to be raised in litigation (as U.S. Courts have yet to opine/provide precedent regarding this revised guidance). We will keep you updated with further developments.