The recent guidance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office on evaluating inventorship involving AI tools has sparked discussions on treating AI differently from other advanced tools. The guidance lacks clear definitions on what constitutes an AI tool and why it should be treated uniquely. The examples provided have also left many gray areas open for interpretation.

While the guidance is a step in the right direction, it raises questions about how examiners will apply it and how courts may interpret the issue differently. As AI continues to advance, it's essential for the legal framework to keep pace with technological developments.

Treating AI as categorically distinct from other tools may not be entirely warranted, especially when considering the current capabilities and uses of AI. As we navigate this evolving landscape, it's crucial for legal professionals to stay informed and adapt to changes in how inventorship is assessed in the context of AI tools.

Treating AI as categorically different from other advanced tools is unwarranted, especially given AI’s current capabilities and uses.

www.csis.org/...