News

USPTO and EPO Maintain Human Inventorship Requirements in AI-Assisted Inventions

The IPTech
By The IPTech
3 Min Read
USPTO and EPO continue to recognize only natural persons as inventors while allowing AI tools to assist in the development of patentable inventions.
USPTO and EPO continue to recognize only natural persons as inventors while allowing AI tools to assist in the development of patentable inventions.

ALEXANDRIA / MUNICH — Patent authorities in the United States and Europe continue to address the implications of artificial intelligence for patent law, clarifying that while AI tools may assist in research and development, legal inventorship remains restricted to natural persons.

Following the USPTO’s November 2025 rescission and replacement of its February 2024 AI inventorship guidance, and alongside the EPO Guidelines for Examination applicable in 2026, both jurisdictions continue to apply their established inventorship frameworks rather than a separate AI-specific inventorship standard.

While the legal frameworks remain procedurally distinct, key positions across both offices include:

  • Natural Person Requirement: Neither the USPTO nor the EPO recognizes an AI system itself as an inventor. Under U.S. law, inventorship continues to be governed by established principles concerning human contribution to the conception of an invention, whereas the legal framework under the European Patent Convention (EPC) explicitly requires the designated inventor to be a natural person.
  • Impact of AI Usage: The use of AI tools during research and development does not, by itself, prevent an invention from being patentable. The applicable statutory and substantive patentability requirements must still be satisfied.
  • AI-Specific Disclosure: Neither the USPTO nor the EPO has established a new requirement specifically obligating applicants to disclose their use of AI tools for inventorship purposes. Existing procedural and disclosure obligations continue to apply.

As international discussions continue regarding the broader implications of AI, practitioners should assess AI-assisted patent applications and portfolios under the established inventorship and patentability requirements applicable in each respective jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, professional, financial, technical, or other professional advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented, no warranty is made as to its completeness, accuracy, or continued validity. Information may change over time and may become outdated. Readers should independently verify information and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. The content is non-binding and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional advice.

TAGGED:
Share This Article