Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into business workflows and operations has been the norm lately. While this brings benefits, it can blur the line between human creativity and machine output.
If you are using AI tools to develop new products or branding, understanding how the law views this is important. Recent updates from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provide clarity on whether your AI-assisted innovations actually belong to you.
Clarifying the contribution test
The USPTO’s 2025 guidance clarified that AI is a tool. Only humans can be inventors, and an AI system cannot be an inventor or joint inventor on a patent. Traditional human conception is the standard for sole inventors, but the significant contribution policy still governs joint inventorship among multiple human contributors under Pannu v. Iolab Corp.
To obtain a patent, you must prove that you have a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. It is advisable to keep detailed logs of the prompts you used, the iterative feedback you provided and the specific manual adjustments you made to the AI’s output.
If a human did not conceive a specific subject matter in a claim, that particular claim may be rejected or invalidated. However, other human-conceived claims in the same patent may remain valid.
Protecting your brand’s future
Before filing, it would be best to conduct an AI audit to identify human conception and AI assistance. This gives you the chance to retrace your paper trail and find errors that could result in a rejection of your patent application.
Do not leave your intellectual property to chance. Seeking legal advice can offer you helpful insights.