The emergence AI is currently the most defining issue in the intellectual property realm. A tool that can almost perfectly replicate human creations surely pose existential threat to IP, where human creativity and originality is central.
Much of the problems surrounding AI lies on the lack of legislative response to it. Many jurisdictions still employ that laws that either do not recognize AI or does not sufficiently tackle it. Regarding this, the current efforts by major countries to regulate AI are worth your attention. Recently, the USPTO rescinds its February 13, 2024 guidance on AI-assisted inventorship and replaces it with new direction reaffirming that the same inventorship standard applies to all inventions, regardless of AI involvement.
Below, we have summarized the key points:
1. Prior Guidance Withdrawn
The 2024 guidance—based on the Pannu joint-inventorship factors—has been fully rescinded because Pannu applies only when determining inventorship among multiple natural persons, not when AI is involved.
2. Core Legal Standards
Only natural persons can be inventors; AI systems cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors
The core of inventorship remains conception—a definite and permanent idea of the complete invention formed in the mind of a human.
Inventorship is fact-specific and requires the human inventor to possess a full understanding of the claimed invention.
3. AI as a Tool
AI systems are treated like any other research tool (software, lab equipment, databases).
A human who uses AI may be an inventor only if they themselves conceived the invention under traditional principles.
If multiple humans contribute, traditional joint-inventorship rules, including Pannu, apply among the humans.
4. Applicability to Design and Plant Patents
The same inventorship rules apply to utility, design, and plant patents.
Plant patent inventors must have contributed to creating the plant; AI assistance does not change this requirement.
5. Priority and Foreign Applications
U.S. applications claiming priority must share at least one natural-person inventor in common with the earlier application.
The USPTO will not accept priority claims to foreign filings that list only AI as an inventor.
If foreign applications include both AI and human inventors, U.S. filings must list only the human inventor(s).
AI cannot be an inventor, and AI involvement does not alter the legal inventorship test. A human must have conceived the invention, even if AI tools assisted in developing it.
Conclusion:
The USPTO’s 2025 guidance reaffirms a core principle of intellectual property law: no matter how advanced or sophisticated AI becomes, it remains a tool, while human creativity and conception remain essential to IP rights. This development could also be a preview how other jurisdictions—potentially including Indonesia—will approach AI-assisted innovations in their patent frameworks.
For professionals whose work is closely tied to IP, staying alert to these evolving standards is not only essential but potentially urgent. For further questions on this topic or any other IP-related matter, please contact us at ambadar@ambadar.co.id. Our team of highly experienced professionals stands ready to assist you.
