WELCOME TO INTELLECT GOODWILL LLP
AI Generated Inventions: Who owns the Patent?
8/13/20265 min read
Artificial Intelligence is not merely a tool that helps people become more creative; it is also helping to create new inventions in the present technological revolution. Modern AI systems can identify technical solutions, generate new molecular structures, optimise engineering designs and even produce solutions that were not expressly anticipated by their human users. This technological development raises a fundamental question for patent law: when an invention is generated by AI, who owns the patent?
The answer is more complicated than simply saying that the person who owns or operates the AI system owns the invention. Patent law traditionally revolves around the concept of an ‘inventor’, and in many jurisdictions, an inventor must be a natural person. The emergence of autonomous AI therefore challenges a legal framework designed around human creativity.
AI-Assisted vs. AI-Generated Inventions
The initial distinction lies between inventions that are AI-assisted and those that are AI-generated. An AI-assisted invention involves a human employing AI as an advanced tool while making a significant contribution to the inventive idea. For instance, a scientist might use AI to produce thousands of potential chemical compounds, identify a high-potential candidate, alter its structure and create a new formulation. In such instances, the human input may support human inventorship.
An AI-generated invention, on the other hand, poses a far more complex issue. In this case, it is proposed that the AI system independently created the inventive idea with minimal or no significant human involvement. The challenge then arises as to whether the AI can be legally recognised as the inventor.
Most AI-assisted inventions are generally owned by the person or entity legally entitled to the invention, depending on the nature of the human contribution and the contractual arrangements involved:
First, the person behind the AI: Where an individual uses AI as a tool to solve a technical problem, improve a product or develop an inventive solution, that person may be recognised as the inventor if they have made a sufficient contribution to the inventive concept.
Second, the employer or organisation: Where an employee develops an invention in the course of employment, the applicable employment agreement, intellectual property policy and governing law may provide that the resulting patent rights are owned by or assigned to the employer.
Third, contractual arrangements: Where AI-assisted research involves multiple parties, such as AI developers, research institutions, universities or corporations, ownership and entitlement may be determined through agreements, assignments, collaboration agreements or R&D contracts.
Fourth, licensing and AI-tool terms: The terms and conditions governing an external AI tool may also affect the use, ownership, confidentiality or commercial exploitation of AI-generated outputs.
Therefore, ownership of an AI-assisted invention should not be determined merely by asking who operated the AI. Rather, it depends upon the human contribution, employment relationship, contractual arrangements, applicable patent law and the terms governing the AI tool used.
Real-World Effects: Trends in AI Patents
54,000 GenAI inventions were identified globally between 2014 and 2023, according to WIPO's Patent Landscape Report on Generative Artificial Intelligence. More than 25% of these inventions emerged in 2023 alone, demonstrating the acceleration of innovation in this field.
The number of published GenAI patent families increased from approximately 14,000 in 2023 to more than 37,800 in 2025. This represents an extraordinary expansion of patenting activity in only two years.
WIPO's latest 2026 update reports that more than 56,000 new GenAI patent families were published during 2024 and 2025 combined, exceeding the total cumulative output of the preceding decade, 2014–2023.
China remains the leading origin of GenAI inventions. Between 2014 and 2023, China accounted for 38,210 GenAI inventions, followed by the United States with 6,276, the Republic of Korea with 4,155, Japan with 3,409 and India with 1,350.
India is particularly significant because WIPO reported that it recorded the highest average annual growth rate among the top five GenAI inventor locations, at 56%, during the period covered by the report.
The growth is not limited to software. WIPO identifies GenAI inventions across life sciences, manufacturing, transportation, security, telecommunications, document management and business solutions, demonstrating that AI-generated and AI-assisted innovation is spreading across multiple technical sectors.
The USPTO has also recorded substantial growth in AI-related patenting. According to its Patent Public Advisory Committee's 2024 Annual Report, the number of annual AI patents increased by approximately 38% between 2018 and 2023, rising from nearly 54,500 to more than 75,200.
AI and Patent Law
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is challenging some of the basic assumptions on which patent law has traditionally been built. Patent systems were largely designed around the idea of a human inventor who identifies a problem, develops a solution and contributes to the inventive concept. Increasingly autonomous AI systems, however, can generate technical solutions, identify patterns and propose designs with a level of independence that was difficult to contemplate when many existing patent laws were enacted.
Multiple potential approaches may emerge. Patent law might continue to recognise only human inventors, viewing AI merely as a tool in the invention process. Alternatively, laws could establish particular guidelines for creations produced with significant AI participation, incorporating more defined criteria for assessing human input and rights. Another option is to establish a separate legal framework for truly autonomous AI-created inventions, though this would pose challenging issues regarding who should be granted the ensuing rights: the AI developer, possessor, manager, employer or another legally recognised individual or organisation.
Any future reform must also weigh conflicting policy factors. Providing patent protection for inventions created by AI might foster investment in AI-focused research and development. Conversely, providing overly broad exclusive rights might increase the prevalence of monopolies and affect competition, especially if AI systems are capable of producing inventions on a massive scale. The future of AI and patent law is therefore unlikely to be shaped by a single court ruling or legislative change.
The key challenge is to establish a patent framework that acknowledges true technological innovation without fabricating ownership or inventorship solely due to the involvement of an AI system. The issue is not whether AI will impact patent law; it is already having an effect. The more challenging issue is how patent law should evolve as the line between human-driven and machine-created innovation becomes harder to establish.
Conclusion
The emergence of AI-generated inventions presents a fundamental challenge to the traditional principles of patent law. While AI systems are increasingly capable of producing innovative technical solutions, the question of inventorship and patent ownership remains closely linked to human contribution, legal entitlement and the applicable statutory framework. As AI continues to transform the innovation landscape, patent laws must evolve to address these emerging challenges without compromising the principles of fairness, innovation and competition. The future of patent protection will depend on striking a careful balance between encouraging technological advancement and ensuring that patent rights are granted to those legally entitled to claim them. Ultimately, the challenge is not merely to determine who owns an AI-generated invention, but to establish a legal framework that can accommodate the changing nature of innovation while preserving the fundamental objectives of patent law.
This article has been authored by Ms. Vaishnavi Sharma, Intern at Intellect Goodwill LLP, as part of our ongoing IP Awareness Series - Intellect Insights, aimed at simplifying complex intellectual property concepts for entrepreneurs, creators, and businesses.
The views expressed in this article are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. The content reflects the personal analysis of the author and not necessarily the views of Intellect Goodwill LLP.
GET IN TOUCH WITH US
Address
69, Patrakar Colony, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452018