Artificial Intelligence has grown beyond being a support tool for data analysis or automation—it’s now a creative engine. AI is capable of generating new ideas, designs, and even solutions that resemble true innovation. This shift is forcing us to rethink the foundation of intellectual property (IP), especially when it comes to patents. For engineers and professionals working in AI and digital transformation, understanding this evolving landscape is more important than ever.

How AI is Changing the Way We Invent

AI is making a real impact on how inventions come to life, and the process is evolving quickly:

• Faster R&D Cycles: With the ability to process and analyze huge volumes of scientific data and prior patents, AI helps identify patterns, highlight promising research directions, and even suggest completely new ideas. What used to take months or years can now be done in a fraction of the time.
• Generative Innovation: In engineering, pharmaceuticals, and other fields, AI can now generate millions of design options or molecular structures—many of which might never cross a human’s mind. This ability to explore beyond traditional boundaries is a game-changer.
• Patent Drafting with AI Support: Some tools can now help draft the technical parts of a patent application. While not perfect yet, this automation is making the process less time-consuming and more accessible to inventors.

In many ways, AI is becoming a collaborator in the invention process—not just a tool we use, but a partner that helps push innovation forward.

The Big Question: Can AI Be an Inventor?

Here’s where things get complicated. Patent law has always operated under one major assumption: only humans can invent. But what happens when an AI system, without much human input, comes up with something new?

This issue was tested globally with the case of DABUS, an AI system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler. He submitted patent applications naming DABUS as the sole inventor. The responses were mixed:

• United States, United Kingdom, and the European Patent Office: All ruled that inventors must be human. Their laws simply aren’t set up to handle non-human inventors.
• Australia: Initially sided with the idea of AI inventorship, but the decision was later reversed.
• South Africa: Granted a patent naming DABUS, but without a deep legal review.

So where does that leave us? In most jurisdictions, someone must still be legally recognized as the inventor. That usually means the person who developed the AI, provided the training data, or understood the value of the AI’s output. In other words, AI might be doing the heavy lifting, but the credit (and legal responsibility) still goes to a human.

Legal and Ethical Questions We Still Need to Answer

The intersection of AI and patents is still full of open questions. Some of the key ones include:

• What Counts as “Inventive” Anymore?
  Patent law requires that an invention be non-obvious. But if AI can quickly generate solutions that seem obvious to another AI but not to a human, we may need to redefine how we judge this standard.
• Risk of Over-Patenting
  If powerful AI systems start flooding patent offices with inventions, we could face a patent overload. This might make it harder for others to innovate and enter certain markets.
• The “Black Box” Problem
  AI models often work in ways that aren’t transparent, making it tough to explain how an invention came to be. Since patents require clear, reproducible descriptions, this is a real issue.
• Rethinking Inventorship
  Some experts are calling for new legal categories like “AI-generated” or “AI-assisted” inventions. These would come with their own rules around ownership, rights, and duration of protection.

We’re entering a new era where machines don’t just assist with innovation—they help lead it. But our legal systems are still playing catch-up. While current patent laws still require a human name on the application, that may not reflect how modern inventions are truly being developed. Whether through updates to existing laws or entirely new legal frameworks, it’s clear that the way we think about inventorship, ownership, and innovation will need to evolve—just like the technology driving it.

Written by: Mr. Forat Maen – Digitalization and AI Trainee