USPTO Issues New Guidance on AI Assisted Inventions

The USPTO has rescinded its prior guidance on AI assisted inventions which relied on the Pannu factors when determining if a human sufficiently contributed to an AI-assisted invention to be considered an inventor.  The USPTO will continue to look to the Pannu factors in cases involving multiple humans to determine joint inventorship.  The USPTO will now focus on conception as the main test to determine whether a human is an inventor when using AI.  I understand why the USPTO is following this approach, but I did find the Pannu test helpful for ascertaining inventorship with AI assisted inventions.  My belief is that the USPTO’s new approach will result in more AI assisted inventions resulting in patentability.  The guidance applies to utility, design and plant patents.  Here is the updated guidance:

Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Examination guidance.

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions on February 13, 2024.1 The USPTO hereby rescinds the previously published Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions and replaces it with the guidance below. . . .

I. Purpose

This notice provides further guidance on the proper legal standard for determining inventorship in patent applications for AI-assisted inventions.

II. Recission of Prior Guidance

The guidance issued on February 13, 2024, titled “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions” is rescinded in its entirety. The approach set forth in that guidance, which relied on the application of the Pannu factors to AI-assisted inventions, is withdrawn. The Pannu factors only apply when determining whether multiple natural persons qualify as joint inventors. Pannu is inapplicable when only one natural person is involved in developing an invention with AI assistance because AI systems are not persons and therefore cannot be “joint inventors” so there is no joint inventorship question to analyze.

III. Governing Legal Standards

The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions, regardless of whether AI systems were used in the inventive process. There is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions.

The Federal Circuit has held that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application (or issued patent) and that only natural persons can be inventors. 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.

The Federal Circuit has centered its inventorship inquiry around “conception,” characterizing conception as “the touchstone of inventorship.” Conception is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Conception is complete when “the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan.”

Determining inventorship is highly fact intensive. The question is whether the natural person possessed knowledge of all the limitations of the claimed invention such that it is so “clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” Analysis of conception turns on the ability of an inventor to describe an invention with particularity. Absent such a description, an inventor cannot objectively prove possession of a complete mental picture of the invention at a later time.

IV. Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

Generally, the USPTO presumes those inventors named on the application data sheet or oath/declaration are the actual inventor or joint inventors of the application. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115, or other appropriate action, should be made for all claims in any application that lists an AI system or other non-natural person as an inventor or joint inventor.

AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors. They are analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process. As the case law establishes, inventors may “use the services, ideas, and aid of others” without those sources becoming co-inventors. The same principle applies to AI systems: they may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention. When one natural person is involved in creating an invention with the assistance of AI, the inquiry is whether that person conceived the invention under the traditional conception standard set forth above in Section III.

When multiple natural persons are involved in creating an invention with AI assistance, the traditional joint inventorship principles apply, including the Pannu factors to determine whether each person qualifies as a joint inventor. Each purported 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.” The fact that AI tools were used in the development process does not change the joint inventorship analysis among the human contributors. . . .

USPTO Stands Firm for Strong Patent Remedies

USPTO states that strong remedies for patent infringement are necessary to protect the public interest.  The Press Release states:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today submitted a Joint Public Interest Comment to the U.S. International Trade Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-3854, emphasizing that the public interest is best served when valid U.S. patent rights are fully and effectively enforced.

The USPTO’s filing explains that patents are constitutional property rights that have powered America’s leadership in technologies “from Morse’s telegraph to modern semiconductors, biologics, and artificial intelligence.” Strong patent protection encourages the investment-based risk taking needed to create and bring to market new technologies.

The Joint Comment with the Department of Justice cautions against approaches that would transform public-interest considerations into preliminary hurdles or de facto barriers to enforcement. Congress designed patent remedies—including injunctions and exclusion orders—to operate as reliable tools for protecting innovation and fueling economic growth.

The USPTO noted that weakening remedies undermines America’s innovation ecosystem, which depends on predictable, enforceable patent rights. The Office recently expressed similar views in its June 2025 Joint Statement of Interest filing with the Department of Justice in Radian Memory Systems v. Samsung, highlighting that patents are unique assets whose value is often not captured through monetary damages alone.

Small Claims Patent Courts Coming to the US Soon? RFPs and Comments Wanted.

The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is working with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to essentially determine if the benefits of small claims patent courts outweigh the costs.  The ACUS website states:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is engaging ACUS to conduct an independent study of issues associated with and options for designing a small claims patent court. The resulting report, which will ultimately be submitted to Congress, will address, among other topics, whether there is need for a small claims patent court, the feasibility and potential structure of such a court, and the relevant legal, policy, and practical considerations in establishing a small claims court.

The ACUS is accepting comments, here. 

The Request for Proposals document for consultants to work with the ACUS states:

Since at least the late 1980s, concerns have been raised that the high cost of patent litigation deters small- and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those owned by traditionally underrepresented groups, from seeking patent protection enforcement. Policymakers, scholars, and organizations have studied whether a small-claims procedure is needed for resolving patent disputes. They have reached different conclusions and proposed different actions. . . .

[The report may discuss:] Whether there is need for a small claims patent court; • The operation and structure of similar small claims intellectual property tribunals in the United States and elsewhere; • The relevant laws that would govern the establishment of a small claims patent court, including the United States Constitution and applicable statutes and regulations; • The policy and practical considerations in establishing a small claims patent court; • The institutional placement, structure, and internal organization of a potential small claims patent court, including whether it should be established within the federal courts, as or within an Article I court, or as an administrative tribunal.

March 4, 2022, is the deadline for proposals.