Artificial intelligence systems now generate inventions. They design new products, create novel solutions, and suggest innovations. But can an AI system appear as an inventor on a patent application?
The Law Requires Human Inventors
Under the Patent Act, an inventor must be an “individual.” The Federal Circuit addressed this question in Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In Thaler, Dr. Stephen Thaler filed two patent applications naming his AI system—DABUS—as the sole inventor. The USPTO rejected both applications. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that “individual” means a natural person.
The court relied on multiple sources for this conclusion. Supreme Court precedent confirms that “individual” means “a human being, a person.” The Patent Act itself uses personal pronouns like “himself” and “herself” when referring to inventors. Previous Federal Circuit cases established that corporations and governments cannot be inventors because they are not natural persons. AI systems fall into the same category.
AI-Assisted Inventions Can Be Patentable
While AI cannot be an inventor, this does not mean AI-assisted inventions are unpatentable. The USPTO issued guidance on February 13, 2024, addressing this exact issue. The guidance, titled “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions,” confirms that inventors can use AI systems in the invention process and still obtain patent protection.
The key question is whether a natural person made a significant contribution to the claimed invention. If so, that person qualifies as an inventor, even if AI assisted in the process.
The Significant Contribution Test
To determine whether a human contribution is significant, the USPTO applies the factors from Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Under the Pannu test, an inventor must:
- Contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention
- Make a contribution that is not insignificant in quality when measured against the full invention
- Do more than explain well-known concepts or the current state of the art
These factors apply to AI-assisted inventions just as they apply to traditional inventions with multiple human inventors.
What Counts as a Significant Contribution?
The February 2024 guidance provides helpful examples. A person who designs, builds, or trains an AI system to solve a specific problem may qualify as an inventor. The person who recognizes the problem, crafts precise prompts, and refines the AI’s output through experimentation may also qualify.
However, mere ownership of an AI system does not make someone an inventor. Supervising an AI system does not create inventorship. The person must make an active contribution to the conception of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
AI systems cannot be inventors under current U.S. patent law. However, inventions created with AI assistance remain patentable when a natural person makes a significant contribution to the claimed invention. The USPTO’s February 2024 guidance provides a framework for determining when that standard is met.
As AI continues to advance, the USPTO may revisit these rules. For now, humans remain essential to the patent system. The law protects human ingenuity—even when that ingenuity involves the use of artificial intelligence.
Justin Miller is a solo patent attorney. In 2025 he started his own law firm, Distinct Patent Law, after nearly 15 years of practice. His firm is located in Saint Petersburg Florida. He serves clients in Tampa Bay, and because patent law is federal, can file patent applications for clients all over the United States.