Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in inventive processes: from machine-learning systems that optimise designs, to algorithms that propose novel chemical molecules, to “autonomous” AI systems that claim to generate inventions with minimal human intervention. This raises profound questions for patent offices around the world: Who is the inventor? Can an AI be named as inventor? Does patentability change if AI is involved? In response, major offices have begun to articulate positions about AI-assisted inventions, AI-generated inventions, inventorship, ownership, and subject-matter eligibility. For practitioners, inventors and content creators (including your law-audience) these developments are critical.

USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office)

The USPTO has recently published clear guidance addressing AI-assisted inventions and inventorship. In February 2024 the USPTO issued its “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions” (effective 13 Feb 2024) under the authority of the U.S. Executive Order on AI (EO 14110).

Key points of the USPTO position

The USPTO affirms that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable. That is, the mere involvement of AI does not disqualify the invention from patent protection. However: “Inventors and joint inventors named on U.S. patents and patent applications must be natural persons (i.e., human beings)”. AI systems cannot be named as inventors.

The patentability (i.e., eligibility, inventive step, etc.) is not altered simply because AI is used. What matters is that a human has made a “significant contribution” to the conception of the invention. The guidance refers to the Pannu factors (joint-inventorship doctrine) as a framework for analysing contributions.

On disclosure and process: While the USPTO will not impose a separate “AI-usage declaration” for inventorship, practitioners should ensure that named inventors properly contributed. The existing duties of candour, disclosure and oath remain.

Implications for applicants
An applicant using AI should still name a human as an inventor who contributed to conception. If the human merely fed data to an AI and the AI generated the inventive concept without human inventive contribution, the application risks being rejected for improper inventorship. The USPTO warning to practitioners about misuse of AI in applications underscores this.

EPO (European Patent Office)

The EPO’s position is also well-documented, especially following the high-profile “DABUS” case (where an AI system named “DABUS” was proposed as the inventor).

Key aspects of the EPO / EPC framework

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and Rules (e.g. Art 81 EPC, Rule 19(1) EPC), the inventor must be a natural person. The EPO held that machines or non-human entities cannot be inventors because they lack legal personality and the rights (moral or property) associated with inventorship.

The EPO’s “Inventorship of AI-related inventions” summary (IP5 group) states: “At this point, designating or listing AI as inventor doesn’t meet the IP5 offices’ requirements because an inventor has to be a natural person within the meaning of IP5 offices’ legal systems.”

On patentability of AI-related inventions: The EPO acknowledges that AI/ML algorithms (pure software or mathematical methods) might be excluded if they are mere abstract mental or mathematical operations. But if they have a “technical character,” implementation, or produce a technical effect, they may be patentable.

Implications
The EPO refuses applications that name AI as inventor. But it does not deny that inventions produced with AI assistance may be patentable, provided there is a (human) inventor and the invention meets the usual requirements. The EPO emphasises that the presence of AI in the process is accepted as long as the formal requirements (naming an inventor) and substantive patentability criteria are met.

IPO (Indian Patent Office)

In India, the statutory framework (Patents Act, 1970) doesn’t explicitly define “inventor” in relation to AI. However, the IPO has engaged with the issue through seminars and best-practice discussions.

Current position and interpretative stance

Section 6 of the Patents Act states that an application may be made by the “true and first inventor” or his assignee. While the Act doesn’t expressly say “natural person,” jurisprudentially it is understood that the inventor is a natural person.

In an event convened by IPO (with JPO) in April 2024, the topic of AI-based inventions and IP management was discussed, indicating that the IPO is actively engaging with the AI-invention issue.

Because there is no formal IPO guideline yet declaring “AI cannot be inventor,” one must rely on general interpretation: referencing the global approach (natural persons only) and the statutory language of “person” in Indian law. Many practitioners infer that under current law only a human can be inventor.

Implications for Indian practice
Law students, creators and applicants must assume that when an invention emerges from AI or machine-learning, the named inventor must be a human who contributed in conception. It is advisable to document the human’s significant contribution. Until the IPO publishes definitive guidance or legislation is amended, conservatism is wise.

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)

As the global multilateral body for IP policy, WIPO has convened several “Conversation on IP & AI” sessions and published analytical material. While WIPO does not itself examine patents, its work provides policy-context and indicates where global IP law may be heading.

Key aspects of WIPO’s engagement

WIPO’s website lists a number of issues for conversation: Inventorship & Ownership of Patents, Patentable Subject Matter & Patentability Guidelines, Inventive Step or Non-Obviousness, Disclosure, General Patent Policy, etc.

A WIPO magazine article emphasises that patent offices themselves are using AI to support examination and workflow, but the core question of AI-generated inventions remains open.

WIPO’s role is to facilitate dialogue and to host submissions from member states, academia and industry. It does not (yet) prescribe binding rules that mandate how AI-inventions must be treated.

Implications
WIPO signals that the question of how to handle AI-generated inventions is global, multi-jurisdictional and intersects with policy (innovation incentives, fairness, legal personality, ownership). As such, the position of major national offices like USPTO, EPO and IPO provide precedents, but WIPO remains a platform for future harmonisation.

Comparative summary and observations

Office	Inventorship (AI as inventor?)	Patentability of AI-inventions	Documentation/Guidance issued
USPTO	No. Only natural persons may be inventors.	AI-assisted inventions may be patentable if human contribution exists.	2024 “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions”
EPO	No. Inventor must be natural person under EPC; machines cannot have inventor rights.	AI-inventions may be patentable if technical character and human inventor exist.	Several decisions (e.g., DABUS) and IP5 summary
IPO (India)	No formal guideline yet; human inventor inferred under Act.	No explicit exclusion; practice evolving. Seminar held April 2024.	Seminar and best-practice discussions; no final guidance yet
WIPO	Global policy discussions; no binding rule yet on AI as inventor.	Emphasis on future reforms, disclosure, and global alignment.	WIPO Conversation on IP & AI, articles, submissions

Observations

There is strong convergence among major offices: AI systems cannot currently be named as inventors because they are not natural persons or do not have legal personality.

These offices distinguish inventorship (who conceived the invention) from ownership (who holds rights) and from patentability (can the invention be patented). The big shift is in recognising that AI may assist, but human contribution remains central.

Patentability is a separate question: Even when AI is involved, what matters is that the claim meets novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability (or equivalents) and has a patentable subject-matter (technical effect etc.). AI as such does not magically transform patentability.

The global policy landscape remains fluid: Offices are convening to discuss how to treat AI, how disclosure should handle AI-usage, how inventorship should be defined, and whether the law needs amendment.

For Indian context (your domain as IPR lawyer & content creator): Although India has not yet published a detailed directive like USPTO’s, practitioners should observe the global trend and prepare for similar evolution of Indian practice.

What this means for innovators, creators and law students

If you are mentoring law students or young inventors: Emphasise that when AI is used, document the human contribution. Who defined the problem? Who selected/structured the data? Who interpreted outputs? Who recognised a novel result? These may form part of the “inventive contribution.”

If you are producing content (e.g., Instagram reel, YouTube short): You can highlight: “AI helps, but humans still invent under current law” — and then outline global offices’ positions.

If you advise innovators filing patents: Be cautious if an application lists only an AI as inventor. In major jurisdictions that is prima facie invalid. Better to identify a human inventor who made conception contributions.

For future-looking strategy: Keep an eye on how Indian practice evolves. While IPO hasn’t yet published a detailed AI-invention guidance, the April 2024 seminar indicates movement. It may be prudent to build in disclosures around AI-assisted invention and consider assignment chains.

Conclusion

The rise of AI in inventive processes challenges traditional notions of inventorship, ownership and patentability. However, major patent offices (USPTO, EPO) currently maintain that only natural persons may be named inventors, while still allowing patent protection for inventions where AI played a role, provided human contribution exists. In India, the legal framework is less explicit but aligns with global trends that emphasise human inventorship. Meanwhile, WIPO facilitates ongoing global debate and policy development.

For practitioners, law-creators and students in India (and globally), this means staying current, advising clients to document human inventive contribution when AI is involved, and preparing for evolving norms as AI technology and patent law continue to interact.