Founding Partner
AI inventions can be patented, but the eligibility rules are strict and the filing strategy matters more than most founders realize. An AI patent lawyer helps you draft claims that survive examination, handle inventorship correctly when AI tools are involved, and build a protection strategy before competitors get there first.
Gearhart Law helps tech companies protect their most valuable innovations. While AI has added new complexity to patent law, it has not changed the core goal: file strategically, draft precisely, and protect what actually gives your business its edge.
This blog covers what an AI patent lawyer actually does that a founder cannot easily do alone, including software patent considerations, the inventorship rules that trip up AI companies, and the filing decisions that determine whether your protection holds up.
Why AI Patent Law Is Harder Than Standard Patent Law
Most patent applicants are protecting something physical or clearly functional. An AI invention is different. You are often trying to patent a method, a model architecture, a training process, or an output that looks, to a patent examiner, like math.
The core problem is that AI systems learn from data and produce outputs through processes that are hard to distinguish from abstract mathematical operations. That distinction matters enormously. Patent eligibility for software and AI is evaluated under a framework that asks whether your claims are directed to a real technical improvement or just a result.
Most AI patent rejections happen because the application describes what the system produces, not how it produces it. Add to that a rapidly shifting legal landscape.
The USPTO has updated its guidance on AI patent eligibility and inventorship multiple times in the past two years alone. What was acceptable claim language 18 months ago may not survive examination today. Staying current with that guidance is part of what an AI patent lawyer brings to the table.
What an AI Patent Lawyer Does That You Cannot Do Alone
The way your claims are worded determines what you own, what you can enforce, and whether the application survives examination.
Claim Drafting for AI Inventions
You need to describe not just what your system does but also how it does it, so that your claim clearly distinguishes your approach from prior art without being so narrow that a competitor can easily design around it.
For machine learning inventions specifically, this means:
- Describing the architecture in terms that distinguish it from known models
- Specifying the training data approach that contributes to the invention
- Tying the model’s function to a specific technical problem and a concrete technical result
- Drafting independent claims broad enough to cover variations, with dependent claims that add specificity as a fallback
An experienced AI patent lawyer has seen which claim structures get approved and which trigger office actions. That pattern recognition is not something you can replicate with a first application.
Responding to Office Actions
AI patent applications routinely receive office actions, and responding effectively requires both technical credibility and legal precision. Patent prosecution for AI inventions can span years and multiple rounds of amendments. An attorney who understands how AI systems actually work is significantly more effective at rebutting examiner rejections than one who does not.
The Inventorship Question Every AI Company Needs to Answer
If your team used AI tools in the development of your invention, you need to understand the current rules on inventorship before you file. Getting this wrong is grounds for rejection.
AI Cannot Be Listed as an Inventor
The Federal Circuit settled this in Thaler v. Vidal (2022), holding that an inventor must be a natural person under the Patent Act. You cannot list an AI system as an inventor or joint inventor. Applications that do will be rejected for improper inventorship.
The 2025 USPTO Guidance: AI Is a Tool, Not a Collaborator
In November 2025, the USPTO issued revised inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions. The current position is that AI is treated as a tool, analogous to laboratory equipment or software, not as a contributor to inventorship. What this means in practice:
- If a human conceived the invention using AI as a tool, the human is the inventor
- If AI generated an output that a human then recognized, selected, and developed into a claimed invention, the human may still qualify as the inventor, depending on the level of contribution
- The touchstone is conception: did a natural person conceive the invention as claimed
- AI assistance in reduction to practice alone is not sufficient for inventorship
Filing Strategy for AI Companies: What to Do and When
AI moves faster than the patent system. By the time a utility patent is granted, typically two to three years from filing, the technology may look very different. That does not mean patents are not worth pursuing. It just means your filing strategy has to account for the speed of the space.
File a Provisional Application Early
A provisional patent application locks in your priority date without committing to final claim language. For fast-moving AI companies, this is often the right first move. It gives you 12 months to refine the invention, observe how the market responds, and develop your claim strategy before the formal application is due.
Patent vs. Trade Secret for AI
Not every AI innovation should be patented. The patent vs. trade secret decision is particularly important for AI companies because:
- A patent requires public disclosure. Once you file, the world can read your application after 18 months
- A trade secret can last indefinitely, but only as long as you keep it confidential
- For a proprietary training dataset, a unique model architecture, or a process that cannot be reverse-engineered from the output, trade secret protection may be stronger than a patent
- For a method or system that competitors could independently develop or reverse-engineer, a patent gives you enforceable rights that a trade secret cannot
The right answer depends on your business model, the competition, and what you are actually trying to prevent. Gearhart Law helps AI companies think through both options before they commit to a filing strategy.
Want to Get Ahead of Protecting Your AI Innovation in New Jersey?
AI patent law is moving as fast as the technology itself. The USPTO is updating its guidance. Courts are still working through what is and is not patentable. The AI companies that come out ahead are the ones that filed strategically early, drafted claims that held up, and got their inventorship right from the start.
Gearhart Law works with AI founders, software developers, and technology companies throughout New Jersey and beyond, including Summit, Millburn, New Brunswick, Westfield, and New York. If you are building in AI and want to make sure what you are building is protected, reach out for a free half-hour consultation. Call 908.273.0700 or send us a message.
Frequently Asked Questions About Patent Eligibility and Filing Challenges
1. Can you patent an AI invention?
Yes. AI inventions can be patented if they meet the standard requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and utility and if the claims are directed to a specific technical application rather than an abstract idea or mathematical method. The key is how the claims are drafted, not whether the invention involves AI.
2. What makes an AI patent application get rejected?
Most AI patent rejections come down to abstract idea rejections. If your claims describe what your AI does without explaining the specific technical how, an examiner will likely reject them as directed to an abstract idea. An AI patent lawyer drafts claims that tie the invention to a concrete technical improvement, which is the key to clearing that hurdle.
3. Can AI be listed as an inventor on a patent application?
No, only natural persons can be listed as inventors. AI is treated as a tool in the inventive process, not a contributor to inventorship. Listing an AI as an inventor is grounds for rejection.
4. What if AI played a significant role in developing our invention?
The question is whether a human conceived the claimed invention. If your team used AI tools to generate ideas, code, or outputs that you then selected, refined, and developed into a specific claimed invention, the human contributors are the inventors. An AI patent lawyer can help document and articulate that analysis so your inventorship is defensible if it is ever challenged.
5. Should I patent my AI invention or keep it as a trade secret?
It depends on whether your innovation can be reverse-engineered from the product. If competitors could independently develop or reverse-engineer your approach by studying your output, a patent gives you enforceable rights. If your value is in a proprietary dataset, a training process, or an architecture that stays hidden, trade secret protection may be stronger. Many AI companies benefit from both.
6. Do I need to file internationally for my AI patent?
If your AI product will be used, sold, or licensed outside the United States, international protection matters. A PCT application preserves your rights in over 150 countries through a single filing and gives you approximately 30 months from your priority date before you need to enter individual national phases.