The advent of generative artificial intelligence has sent shockwaves across the industry, from technology to creative. AI systems that can generate executable computer code, create news stories, and spin up professional graphics have influenced countless headlines in many other areas asking whether they would take away their jobs in technology, journalism and design.
And how to do these new jobs and create things raises another question. What does it mean to be an inventor in the age of AI?
It is becoming increasingly common among engineers building digital tools and programs to use AI as part of the design and development process. But as deep learning models are increasingly bent technical muscles, even highly skilled researchers using AI at work are beginning to express concern about becoming obsolete.
There is much debate about whether AI can enhance human creativity, but new data suggests that this technology can boost research and development, where creativity usually plays an important role. A recent study by MIT Economics doctoral student Aidan Toner-Rodgers found that scientists using AI tools increased their patent applications by 39%, creating 17% more prototypes than they did when working without such tools.
The study shows that AI seemed to help increase human productivity, but also showed that it had a downside. Eighty-two percent of researchers surveyed were less satisfied with their work since implementing AI in their workflows. “It didn't make many of the education feel unworthy,” one researcher said.
This new dynamic leads to related questions. If scientists use AI to build something new, will the output still be certified as an invention? As a legal scholar studying technology and intellectual property law, I see the growing power of AI changing the legal landscape.
Natural people
In 2020, the US Patent and Trademark Office rejected the list of AI system Dabus, which is said to have designed food containers and flashing emergency beacons, as the inventor of a patent application. Subsequent court decisions revealed the issue of inventions developed by scientists, whereas under current US law, only humans can be listed as inventors, whereas AI is qualified for patent protection.
The inventor's concept and the concept of legal protection against inventions have deep roots in the United States. The Constitution explicitly protects the “exclusive rights” of the authors and inventors in their respective works and discoveries, reflecting Framer's strong belief that the state should protect and encourage original ideas.
US Patent and Trademark Office
US law today defines inventors as natural people who are considering complete and operational inventions that can be used without extensive research or experimentation. The inventor must do more than follow routine instructions.
That contribution can be an important idea or insight that will induce inventions to turn concepts into practical products. If you explain that a person's input is routine or already known, then they are not inventors.
The role of AI
To what extent should AI be part of the invention process or what should it be? The release of AI applications such as ChatGPT in 2022 introduced the public to large-scale language models, sparking new debates about whether and how AI should be used in Inventive Process. That same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard a lawsuit that tested whether AI could be appointed as the inventor of a patent application.
The court concluded that under US law, inventors must be human. The ruling reaffirmed the idea that Congress was intended to encourage humans to invent things rather than machines. This idea remains the basis of current patent policy.
In light of the court's decision, in 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its guidance to clarify the role of AI in the invention process. The guidance reaffirms that the inventor must be human. However, the Patent and Trademark Office explained that this policy does not rule out inventors using AI tools to help develop the invention. This approach acknowledges how the rapid development of AI technology allows researchers to make exciting breakthroughs.
Policymakers seem to understand that if the US continues to lead the world in innovation, the myth of the only inventors who suffer in the garage and rely on pure intelligence must evolve to explain the value of AI tools that have proven to make humans more productive.
Nevertheless, current policies do not fully answer the question of who or what should do their job, as only humans can be named inventors of patents. Despite the growing trend of researchers clarifying whether they used AI tools, in academic papers, for example, the US patent systems do not make such demands.
Regardless of the role of AI in the research and development process, US patents list only the names of human inventors, as long as these humans contribute significantly to their invention. As a result, current policies do not concern how AI is recognized. AI is considered a tool such as a microscope or a Bunsen burner.
Personal ingenuity in the age of AI
Given this changing, legal situation, we see that US innovation policies are at a crossroads. Patent and Trademark Room guidance reaffirms human inventors and at the same time embraces AI as an innovation tool only a year ago. It is unclear how the Trump administration's future action plan to “strengthen America's global AI” will affect this guidance.
Some observers hope that the speed of scientific discovery will increase dramatically with the support of AI tools. But if the majority of those same productive researchers enjoy less work, are there any acts encouraged as framers imagined?
Current US policies seek to balance and recognize the notion of individual ingenuity. This is due to the principle that humans must have led the way to obtain patents in the United States. However, the guidance also implicitly acknowledges that AI can lend aid to modern research and development. Whether and how policymakers maintain this balance and how industry and science leaders respond will help shape the next chapter of American innovation.
