Artificial intelligence is moving faster than any technology we have seen before. While speed creates opportunity, it also creates uncertainty. Businesses, developers, and legal professionals are all asking the same question: what rules apply to my use of AI?

The White House’s March 2026 National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence Legislative Recommendations attempts to answer that question. And for once, Washington may be getting ahead of the problem instead of reacting to it.

The Growing Risk of a Patchwork AI Legal System

As I have written about several times, without clear federal guidance, states have begun creating their own rules governing artificial intelligence. On the surface, that may sound reasonable. In practice, it creates a mess.

If each state adopts its own standards for AI development, data use, liability, and disclosure, companies are forced to navigate 50 different legal systems. What is allowed in one state may expose a company to liability in another.

We have seen this before. Privacy laws, noncompete agreements, and consumer protection rules already vary widely across states. Adding AI to that list only increases compliance costs and legal risk. While larger companies can spread that cost across thousands of projects, for startups and smaller companies, that burden can be enough to stop innovation before it starts.

A National Framework Brings Much-Needed Clarity

The White House recommendations aim to create a consistent federal approach to AI regulation. That consistency is critical.

A unified framework allows businesses to:

• Develop AI systems with clearer legal expectations
• Scale products across state lines without redesigning compliance strategies
• Reduce the risk of conflicting obligations
• Focus resources on innovation instead of regulatory guesswork

From a legal standpoint, predictability is often more valuable than flexibility. Companies can adapt to strict rules. What they cannot easily manage is uncertainty.

Encouraging Innovation While Managing Risk

One of the more encouraging aspects of the framework is that instead of shutting down AI development, it instead focuses on promoting AI use through responsible use.

This approach recognizes a simple truth. AI is not going away.

Trying to restrict AI through inconsistent state laws would not stop its growth. It would only reward large corporate campaign donors, while punishing small companies and pushing AI development into less regulated environments or offshore. That outcome benefits no one.

A federal framework, on the other hand, allows policymakers to address legitimate concerns such as:

• Data privacy
• Consumer protection
• Transparency in AI-generated content
• Accountability for harmful outcomes

At the same time, it preserves room for businesses to continue building and improving AI tools.

Avoiding the Mistakes of Past Technologies

Historically, regulators have struggled to keep pace with emerging technologies. The result is often a reactive system where laws lag behind real-world use.

The White House’s effort signals a shift toward a more proactive strategy. By setting baseline expectations now, lawmakers can reduce the need for rushed or inconsistent regulations later.

This is particularly important for artificial intelligence, where early design decisions can have long-term legal and ethical consequences.

What This Means for Businesses

For companies developing or using AI, this legislative framework should be seen as a positive development.

It suggests that:

• Federal standards are likely coming
• State-by-state regulation may be limited or preempted
• Compliance strategies can begin aligning around national expectations

But bear in mind, this is just a bare bones aspirational framework. It provides no recommendations for specific legislative language. Given that we are still far from an actual federal AI regulatory scheme, businesses should not wait for final legislation to act. Now is the time to:

• Review how AI is being used internally and externally
• Understand the data inputs and outputs of AI systems
• Implement written policies governing employee use of AI tools
• Consult legal counsel to prepare for upcoming regulatory changes

As with any type of technology use, early planning almost always leads to better outcomes.

Conclusion

The White House’s AI legislative recommendations are not detailed, not perfect, and not final. But they represent an important step toward creating a stable legal environment for one of the most important technologies of our time.

A consistent federal approach in accordance with this framework will help prevent a fragmented system of state laws that slows innovation and increases risk. More importantly, it gives businesses a clearer path forward.

In a space defined by rapid change, clarity is not just helpful. It is essential.

Related posts

• Why State AI Laws Are Hurting Innovation and Your Bottom Line (0)
• Why Intellectual Property Law Is Here to Stay (Yes, Even If Elon Musk Disagrees) (0)
• Proposed Legislation in Iowa Could Tip the Scales Against Small Tech Firms (0)

In a major development shaking up the fast-growing weight-loss drug market, Hims & Hers Health has pulled its heavily discounted $49 compounded version of Wegovy, the blockbuster GLP-1 weight-loss pill from Novo Nordisk. This move followed mounting legal pressure from the Danish drugmaker.The decision has significant implications for intellectual property enforcement and competition in the lucrative obesity drug market. 

What Happened: Hims Withdraws Cheaper Wegovy Copy

Hims & Hers had launched a compounded version of semaglutide, the active ingredient in Wegovy, priced at $49 for the first month and $99 thereafter, a steep discount compared to Novo Nordisk’s branded version, which starts around $149 per month. The approach aimed to attract cost-conscious consumers seeking oral weight-loss solutions without the traditional pricing of brand-name drugs. 

However, less than a week after the rollout, the telehealth company announced it would withdraw the product, citing “constructive conversations with stakeholders.” This pullback came just as Novo Nordisk filed a patent-infringement lawsuit over the cheaper alternative. 

Patent Pressure

Novo Nordisk has taken a firm stance, arguing that Hims’s pill was not just a generic alternative but an unapproved, unauthorized replication of its patented Wegovy drug. The company’s lawsuit seeks a permanent ban on the sale of these compounded drugs and damages, contending that large-scale compounding for general use crosses from personalized medicine into illegal mass production. 

Market Reaction: Stocks and Competition

The immediate fallout was swift. Novo Nordisk’s shares jumped sharply following the announcement that Hims was withdrawing its version of the pill, reflecting investor relief that competitive pressure from a low-priced alternative had eased. At the same time, Hims & Hers stock dropped 20%, illustrating how patent infringement risks can swiftly erode market confidence. 

The episode also caught the attention of other pharmaceutical players. Rival companies like Eli Lilly, which is preparing its own weight-loss pill offerings, saw their stocks fluctuate as market dynamics shifted. 

Broader Implications for Intellectual Property and Drug Access

This case highlights the tension between intellectual property protection and consumer demand for lower-cost medications. Patents on drugs like Wegovy protect innovation by granting exclusive rights to sell, but they also raise prices, spurring interest in compounded alternatives. However, when companies blur the line from tailored, patient-specific compounding into mass production, they risk a, potentially company-ending, patent infringement lawsuit. For patent owners like Novo Nordisk, defending patents is essential to recoup research investments and fund future breakthroughs. 

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

For pharmaceutical developers and IP holders:

• Patent enforcement remains a critical tool in protecting branded drug franchises from unapproved competitors.
• Legal action and regulatory engagement can serve as strong deterrents to unauthorized replicas.

For telehealth and compounding entrepreneurs:

• Navigating the complex legal and regulatory landscape is essential before launching compounded drugs for broad commercial use.
• Claims about equivalence to approved drugs must be carefully vetted to avoid misleading consumers and regulators.

For companies in general: 

All companies have some type of intellectual property: from trademarks, to customer lists, to patents. This lawsuit and subsequent withdrawal reinforce the importance of creating a well-structured intellectual property strategy before proceeding to market. Your strategy should encompass not only protecting your own intellectual property, but avoiding infringing other companies’ intellectual property as well. If you’re developing or distributing innovative products, it is critical that you develop a well-rounded intellectual property portfolio and strategy before proceeding past the point of no return. 

Related posts

• The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: You Don’t Get a Patent Simply for Using Ordinary AI to Solve Ordinary Problems   (0)
• Why You Need a Patent Attorney Skilled in Both Prosecution and Litigation (0)
• Using a Contingent Fee Attorney to Avoid the High Cost of Patent Litigation (0)

Artificial intelligence can be a great tool for learning the basics about the law. It can help you understand legal terms, court procedures, and even give you a general idea of what to expect from your case. But when it comes to actually communicating with your attorney, AI is the last thing you should be using.

Here’s why.

Your Lawyer Needs Your Words, Not AI’s Guesswork

When you’re communicating with your attorney, the most important thing is clear, honest communication. Your attorney doesn’t want a cleaned-up version of your story. They don’t want what you, or an AI, think sounds like a good legal explanation. They want the truth, in your words, with all the details, even if they seem messy or unimportant to you.

AI gets in the way of that. It tries to make your message sound more “professional” or “legal.” That might seem helpful, but it’s not. It hides what actually happened and replaces it with language that sounds like something from a law school textbook. That just makes it harder for your attorney to understand what really went on.

AI Makes It Harder to Spot the Problem

Attorneys are trained to read between the lines. When you tell us what happened, in your own words, we can spot the red flags. We can tell if something needs more digging or if there’s a problem you didn’t realize was important. But when AI rewrites your message, it covers up those clues. It makes it harder for us to do our job and help you.

You Might Leave Out the Most Important Parts

AI doesn’t know which facts matter most in your case. It may cut or change things you think are “off topic” or “not important.” But your attorney might see those exact details as critical to your defense, your strategy, or your claim. By using AI to write your message, you may be taking away the very thing your attorney needs to help you the most.

Use AI to Learn, Not to Communicate

Don’t get me wrong, I encourage my clients to use AI to learn more about the legal process. If you want to know the difference between a trademark and a copyright, or how a deposition works, AI can help with that. It’s a great starting point. But when it comes to direct communication with your lawyer, leave the AI out of the picture. Just tell me what happened. The way you would tell a friend. Your attorney will take care of the legal part from there.

Final Thoughts

If you want the best legal help, the best thing you can do is be open and honest, with your words, not an AI’s. We don’t need perfect grammar or polished paragraphs. We just need the truth. And that starts with you.

Related posts

• Why You Need a Patent Attorney to Protect Your Invention (0)
• Top 5 Patent Mistakes AI Inventors Make (0)
• ChatGPT’s New Usage Policy: No More Legal or Medical Advice (0)

The Beckham family is facing internal trademark and branding issues that have become part of a much bigger public feud involving Brooklyn Beckham and his parents David and Victoria Beckham. What started as business plans and trademark filings has now tangled with personal issues, creating a headline?making story about family, fame, and legal rights.

In this article, we break down what is known about the Beckham family trademark issues, how legal rights to the Brooklyn Beckham’s name became controversial, and what it means for Brooklyn’s business and personal relationships.

What Happened With the Brooklyn Beckham Trademark Filing

Brooklyn Beckham, the eldest son of sports legend David Beckham and fashion designer Victoria Beckham, previously filed trademark applications for name?related business ventures. These were meant to protect brands tied to his own creative projects, including culinary goods and other products, but they hit legal challenges:

• Brooklyn withdrew one trademark application after objections, reportedly amid tensions over branding rights within the family. This came after his attempt to secure exclusive use of his name for business purposes. 
• He later faced opposition from an unrelated company, German brewery Beck’s, when trying to trademark a new product name tied to his food brand. Beck’s filed to block the application, leading to legal back?and?forth. 

Trademark challenges like these are common when names overlap across businesses. But in Brooklyn’s case, they came at a time of increasing family conflict about how the Beckham brand is used and who controls rights to it.

How the Trademark Issue Tied Into Family Tension

The trademark situation isn’t just about business filings. Brooklyn has publicly claimed that his parents pressured him to sign away certain rights to his own name before his 2022 wedding, in the form of a branding rights agreement that could affect his future ventures and earnings. According to Brooklyn, that pressure was a key source of strain. 

This claim has not been confirmed by David or Victoria Beckham in detail, but it has fueled a very public rift:

• Brooklyn says his parents wanted him to sign over rights to his name before his wedding, a move he says would have impacted his, and his family’s, future financial rights. 
• He also issued a cease and desist, telling his parents to communicate only through lawyers. 

What started as business and branding concerns has merged with emotional family issues, and trademark rights are now part of the conversation about control, legacy, and individuality.

What Legal Trademark Rights Are at Stake

To understand what is happening, it helps to know what trademark filings do:

Trademark Basics

• A trademark gives the owner exclusive rights to use a name, logo, or phrase in association with the sale of specific goods or services.
• For public figures like the Beckhams, trademarks may cover clothing lines, food products, media, and more.
• Filing a family name trademark can be complex when multiple family members want to use their own names for their own ventures.

Why Conflicts Happen

• If Brooklyn characterizes his name rights as tied to a Beckham family brand, and his parents hold or control many related trademarks, there can be real legal disputes.
• Objections from third parties like other companies (for example, Beck’s beer) illustrate that trademark rights are not automatic simply because of a famous last name. 

While David and Victoria Beckham have owned many “Beckham” trademarks for decades, this case involves Brooklyn Beckham wanting to use his own name to promote various products. In 2016, Victoria Beckham registered, as parent of Brooklyn Beckham, a European trademark and a UK trademark for “Brooklyn Beckham” as used in association with cleaning products, recording instruments, magazines, leather products, clothing, etc. Unless renewed, these trademark registrations are set to expire in December of 2026. 

Additionally, Brooklyn Beckham has indicated an interested in using his own name to promote other products as well. So while it is not clear, the current controversy may relate to the ownership of the “Brooklyn Beckham” trademarks, Brooklyn Beckham’s right to use his name on other products, or both. 

These types of high-profile trademark disputes are often resolved through negotiation, licensing agreements, or court challenges. When high?profile family members are pitted against one another, given the risk of the public airing of the family’s dirty laundry, resolving those rights privately is ideal. Unfortunately, in this case, as in many others, public tension and scrutiny can make private solutions harder to reach.

Why This Matters for the Beckham Brand

The Beckham name is globally recognized, largely because of:

• David Beckham’s legendary football career, and
• Victoria Beckham’s long?running fashion success. 

Together, the family name has major commercial value. That makes issues of who owns or controls trademark rights in the Beckham trademarks highly significant for future business opportunities.

For Brooklyn, if he truly refuses to affiliate with the Beckham family brand or give up rights to his name, it could have real financial and branding consequences. Some analysts say distancing from the Beckham name could cost him in endorsements or negotiations if his surname has been a key value driver in partnerships. 

What’s Next

Trademark filings and legal disputes can take years to settle. If the Beckham family cannot resolve their differences privately:

• More trademark filings could be contested or revoked,
• Agreements may need court clarification on ownership,
• And related business ventures may suffer delays or extra cost.

At the same time, Brooklyn’s public comments about alleged pressure over his name rights highlight how personal and legal conflicts can merge when the trademark issues center on real family relationships.

For anyone watching from the outside, the Beckham trademark story serves as a reminder: fame and family do not always equate to trademark harmony.

Related posts

• Why Lululemon May Win the Trademark Battle with Costco, but End Up Losing the War (0)
• Iowa Popeyes Battle: When Franchisees Refuse to Leave  (0)
• Ninth Circuit Overrules California Court in Bored Ape Yacht Club Trademark Case   (0)

The world of robotics is changing so fast that movie screen fantasy is quickly transitioning into patented product reality. Recent patent trends and big company moves show that humanoid robots are not just science fiction anymore. The future is closer than you may think.

China Leads the Patent Charge

China has broadly surged ahead of other countries in humanoid robot innovation. Over the past five years, China has filed around five times more humanoid robot patent applications than the United States. In that time, China recorded more than 7,700 patent applications related to humanoid robots versus just over 1,500 for the U.S. and about 1,100 for Japan. While the quantity of patent applications is not necessarily a sign of the quality of those applications, in this case, it seems pretty clear that, when it comes to humanoid robot innovation, China does not only hold a significant lead over the rest of the world, but that lead is increasing.

These recently filed patent applications cover a wide range of technologies that allow robots to move, see, balance, and interact with the world in humanlike ways. These innovations are not just theoretical. Online videos and innovations trade shows are revealing more and more of what humanoid robots can do. At a press conference for this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2026, Korean tech company LG demonstrated its AI consumer home robot “CLOiD.” CLOiD connects to your Internet of Thngs (IoT) appliances to perform household chores like cooking and doing your laundry. 

Why These Patents Matter

Patent applications are often a strong clue about where technology is going. When companies invest in patents, they are betting on future markets. With humanoid robots, patents help protect new ways for robots to:

• move like humans
• sense their surroundings
• make decisions with artificial intelligence
• work safely alongside people

More patents mean more investment, more competition, and faster movement from lab prototypes to real products.

Hyundai and the Move to Deploy Robots

The shift from patents to real robots at the consumer level pales in comparison to the commercial shift toward humanoid robots. Hyundai Motor Group is among the companies preparing for a robot-rich future. At CES 2026, Hyundai outlined a major strategy to bring artificial intelligence and robotics together. Hyundai showed plans to build human-centered robots that work alongside humans.

Hyundai is also integrating robots into its factories. Through its ownership of Boston Dynamics (the company that makes the cute, but creepy dog-like robots), Hyundai already uses robots like the Atlas humanoid robot in industrial settings. The company plans to gradually deploy Atlas robots in real production work, starting with tasks like parts handling and repeating motions. 

In the United States, Hyundai has looked at using Atlas robots and other machines at its Metaplant America facility in Georgia. The company aims to have robots handle the more hazardous, repetitive, or physically demanding work, while human workers focus on oversight, training, and robot supervision.  

What This Means for the Future

All these developments, patent filings, product launches, and deployment plans, point to a future where humanoid robots are part of everyday work and life:

• Factories will change as robots assist or replace humans in difficult or repetitive jobs.
• Innovation will accelerate as companies protect and commercialize new robot technologies.
• Workplaces may evolve with humans supervising robot teams rather than doing tasks themselves.

Some people may worry about robots replacing human workers, but the current industry focus is on collaboration and assistance rather than full replacement. Robots are designed to take on tasks that are dangerous or exhausting, while people provide oversight, problem-solving, and creative judgment.

Conclusion

The rise of humanoid robots is no longer only science fiction. Patent application filings, especially from global leaders like China, shows how aggressively the world is preparing for this shift. At the same time, Hyundai and others are already rolling out real-world robotics programs that will shape how we work and interact with machines.

Taken together, these trends suggest that a humanoid robot future is arriving sooner, rather than later. Over the next few years, you will begin to see humanoid robots start taking an active role in nearly every industry. While this bodes well for global productivity, you might want to rewatch Terminator 2 to make sure you are familiar with what to do if things go south.  

Related posts

• You Can’t Just Say “AI” Anymore: The New Rules for Patenting Machine Learning Inventions (0)
• Why Intellectual Property Law Is Here to Stay (Yes, Even If Elon Musk Disagrees) (0)
• Universal Music Group Files 15 New AI-Focused Patents with Liquidax Capital (0)

Back in October, I wrote about how states like California, Texas, Utah, and Colorado were punishing small businesses by implementing growing morass of disjointed mandatory state regulations on the use of AI. I wrote that what this country needs is not a hodge-podge of rent-seeking state regulations, but one clear national standard. This month, President Trump took the first steps in that direction, by signing a key Executive Order setting a national policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI). The goal of this policy is to give companies and innovators clear, national rules instead of a mountain of haphazard state laws that could slow AI development and make compliance costly.  

If your business uses AI technology, builds AI tools, or plans to integrate AI in the near future, this policy could shape how you compete, grow, and manage risk.

Why a National AI Framework Matters

Artificial intelligence is a foundational technology across industries—from healthcare and finance to manufacturing and defense. Lawmakers and regulators want to balance innovation, safety, and economic growth in a way that helps U.S. businesses lead globally. A unified approach, according to the White House, will:

• Prevent a confusing patchwork of different rules in every state.  
• Make it easier to invest in and scale AI systems across the country.  
• Support U.S. competitiveness against global rivals such as China.  

Right now, more than a thousand local AI regulations and state proposals risk creating inconsistent requirements that burden companies and slow innovation. The new federal policy aims to clear that confusion.  

What the National AI Policy Framework Does

Here are the key points you should know:

1. Federal Standards Override Conflicting State Rules

The federal government will work to make sure one clear set of AI rules applies nationwide, reducing red tape for startups and large companies alike.  

2. National AI Leadership Is a Priority

The policy directs federal agencies and executive branch officials to promote American AI development and leadership in the global technology race.  

3. Federal Task Force May Challenge State Laws

A new AI Litigation Task Force will review state AI regulations and will challenge laws it views as burdensome or conflicting with federal policy. 

4. Business Growth and Investment Are Central Goals

By reducing regulatory uncertainty, the framework aims to help businesses invest more confidently in AI innovation with a nationwide legal backdrop.  

What This Means for Your Business

If your company develops or uses AI, here’s what to consider:

Planning and Compliance Get Easier

A national standard can reduce your legal costs and compliance risks by replacing 1,000+ current state laws and pending bills.

A Level Playing Field for Small Business

While compliance is often no more than a rounding error for big business, forcing small businesses to comply with fifty different, ever-changing, state AI regulatory schemes, can be enough to put them out of business. A new national standard makes it easier for small businesses to grow and compete in the era of AI.

Innovation Becomes More Predictable

Clear federal guidance means investors and developers can plan long-term projects without worrying that one state’s rules will derail them.

Watch for Enforcement Actions

The creation of a task force means federal scrutiny of state regulation and possible legal challenges. Stay updated and consult legal counsel if you operate across state lines.

Stay Engaged with Federal Guidance

As agencies and policymakers interpret the framework, they will issue more guidance and potentially new rules. Early engagement helps your business adapt faster.

Critics and Supporters

Supporters argue a national approach will boost U.S. competitiveness, spur investment, and simplify compliance. Critics warn that shifting authority away from states could limit local innovation and weaken protections for consumers on issues such as bias, safety, and data privacy. Not surprisingly, the small sample of business owners I have spoken with are all firmly in favor of a single national policy on AI. 

Final Takeaway

The new AI policy framework is an important shift in U.S. technology policy, aimed at putting the country, and American businesses, on a stronger footing in the global AI race. By creating a national standard, the federal government is saying that AI innovation matters to economic growth and national competitiveness.  

Your company still needs a solid AI policy and still needs to comport with federal AI policy, but overall the regulatory burden on small businesses just got a lot less burdensome.

Related posts

• Does the Law Protect You From Deepfakes? (0)
• Why You Need an AI Policy (0)
• Reddit’s Lawsuit Against AI Scrapers: What it Means for the Industry (0)

If you run a business that develops or uses software, this case should get your full attention. In November 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $168 million judgment against an IT company for misusing another company’s confidential computer code.

Here’s what you need to know, and the steps you need to take, to protect your own software and avoid ending up in court for misappropriation of trade secrets.

What Happened in the Case?

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) accused Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) of using CSC’s confidential software tools and documents to help win a $2.6 billion contract and to build its own competing software. TCS employees got access to CSC’s internal materials while working under a contract with CSC’s client. CSC said TCS took that material and used it to upgrade its own platform, BaNCS.

The court agreed with CSC. Even though there was a contract, the court found that TCS went beyond what was permitted and used CSC’s code for its own gain. That misuse cost TCS $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages. The court also ordered TCS to stop using any parts of the misappropriated software.

What Business Owners Need to Do Right Now

1. Lock Down Your Software Code as a Trade Secret

• Keep all proprietary code behind strict digital and physical security walls.
• Use nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with anyone who touches your code: contractors, employees, consultants, clients, etc.
• Only give access to those who truly need it, and track that access.

2. Put Clear Boundaries in Contracts

• If you let other companies or freelancers work with your code, your contract must clearly state what they can and cannot do with it.
• Spell out what happens if they use it outside the agreement, and make sure they know you’ll enforce it.

3. Avoid Using Someone Else’s Code Without a Green Light

• If a vendor, client, or third party gives you code, documentation, or tools, do not assume it is yours to use however you like.
• Misusing someone else’s protected code, even by accident, could trigger a federal trade secret lawsuit under the DTSA (Defend Trade Secrets Act).
• Train your team not to “borrow” code from clients or the internet without knowing who owns it and whether they’re allowed to use it.
• Do not trust that online code is “open source” unless you receive written confirmation from the actual author. 

Why This Case Matters to You

This case wasn’t just about stealing source code. It was about misusing confidential materials received during a project. If your team is working on a client system, it is your job to make sure no one copies or reuses parts of that system later.

It also shows that trade secret cases can go nuclear, with damages totaling $168 million or more. Not only are you liable for the damage you caused, but you may also be liable for the money you saved not having to build the software from scratch.

Key Takeaways for Business Owners

• Protect your own code like it’s gold, because legally, it is.
• Have written procedures and protocols for protecting all trade secrets.
• Limit who gets access to your proprietary tools and codebase and ensure they are all subject to NDAs.
• Review all contracts involving third-party access to your systems.
• Educate your developers on what qualifies as a trade secret and what they can and can’t use.
• When in doubt, ask your lawyer. It’s much cheaper to clarify things early than to defend a lawsuit later.

Related posts

• Why You Need an AI Policy (0)
• Suing Over Artificial Intelligence (0)
• Reddit’s Lawsuit Against AI Scrapers: What it Means for the Industry (0)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how inventions are created and how innovators seek protection in the United States. John Squires, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued updated guidance on how AI-assisted inventions are treated for inventorship in patent applications. This change is one of the most important developments for companies, inventors, and patent lawyers working with AI technology. 

What the New USPTO Guidance Says

In November 2025, the USPTO published a revised guidance document that rescinds prior AI inventorship guidance and replaces it with a new standard for AI-assisted inventions. The key points include:

• The previous guidance from February 2024 is withdrawn in full.  
• The legal test for inventorship is the same for all inventions, whether or not AI was involved.  
• Only natural persons (humans) can be named as inventors in a patent application. AI systems, no matter how advanced, cannot be inventors because they are not people.  
• AI tools are treated like any other tool in the lab or office, such as software or research equipment. Using AI to assist with an invention does not change the legal test for inventorship.  

This update aligns USPTO policy with existing Federal Circuit precedent that AI cannot legally be an inventor.  

Why This Matters for Innovators

1. AI Doesn’t Change the Inventorship Test

When a human inventor uses AI, the focus remains on conception, which is the moment when the idea is fully formed in the human’s mind. In legal terms, conception is “the formation in

the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative

invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Conception is complete when “the

inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a

general goal or research plan.” 

The question boils down to, can you describe the invention with sufficient particularity so that anyone with ordinary skill in that field could use your description to replicate the invention? Just using AI to help generate data, code, or design ideas does not, by itself, make AI an inventor.  

This is consistent with how the USPTO and courts handle human invention assisted by tools in other technical areas.  

2. Clear Rules Help Reduce Risk

Patent applicants must be careful not to list AI tools as inventors. If an application incorrectly lists an AI system or robot as an inventor, it will be rejected under U.S. patent law.  

The USPTO guidance makes these rules clearer for patent attorneys and inventors, which helps reduce mistakes and delays in patent filings.

3. Human Inventors Still Drive Innovation

Even if AI performs many tasks, the USPTO’s rules focus on human contributions. As long as an inventor can show that a person conceived the invention with the help of AI, and that person understood all aspects of the idea, the application may proceed.  

This guidance reflects the long-held view that innovation must be grounded in human creativity, even when AI plays a big role in development.

AI Patent Trends and Broader Context

AI inventions are one of the fastest-growing areas in U.S. patent filings. The USPTO’s Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset shows that millions of past patents contain AI-related technology, and AI continues to spread across industries. 

AI patent filings have been increasing sharply. Data from the industry shows a surge in generative AI and machine learning patents from major tech companies and research labs. 

At the same time, the USPTO and its director have signaled that subject matter eligibility and examination of AI inventions will continue to evolve, with an emphasis on supporting innovation while maintaining clear legal standards.  

Tips for Filing AI-Assisted Patent Applications

Here are some practical tips based on the new guidance and current patent law:

Document Human Contribution Clearly
Explain how each human inventor contributed to the conceptual invention. Simply listing AI output without human insight is not enough.

Do Not List AI as an Inventor
Only natural persons should be named on the inventor line of a patent application.

Prepare for Detailed Examination
Patent examiners may ask for additional information about how the invention was conceived and the role AI played in its development.

Work With Experienced Counsel
AI patent law is evolving. Legal counsel familiar with both patent law and AI technology, with a eye on the future, can help you navigate this landscape.

Conclusion

The USPTO’s 2025 AI inventorship guidance makes an important point clear for innovators: AI can assist, but humans remain the inventors under U.S. patent law. These updated rules help preserve legal clarity while letting inventors benefit from advances in artificial intelligence. If you are developing AI-assisted inventions, updating your patent strategy to reflect this new guidance will help you avoid mistakes and improve your chances of securing patent protection.

Related posts

• You Can’t Just Say “AI” Anymore: The New Rules for Patenting Machine Learning Inventions (0)
• Universal Music Group Files 15 New AI-Focused Patents with Liquidax Capital (0)
• There is a New Sheriff in Town: USPTO Director Pushes Hard for Patenting AI-related Inventions (0)

Most people assume that AI is coming to take jobs away from lawyers, doctors, and financial planners. That might happen in some cases, but the bigger story is being overlooked. The real winners will be the professionals who know how to delegate the boring parts of their job to AI, and use the extra time to focus on what they do best.

The truth is, despite their protestations and disclaimers to the contrary, tools like ChatGPT already offer some types of legal, medical, and financial advice that is better and cheaper than what many professionals provide. The problem is that AI platforms still pepper the good advice with just a dash of really terrible advice. The recent swath of AI disclaimers, warning not rely on AI to diagnose your appendicitis or move your retirement savings into Kardashian NFTs, indicates some naïve souls are still unaware of AI’s innate ability to make life-altering mistakes. Compounding the problem is that AI does not make the same types of mistakes humans make. This makes it nearly impossible for a non-subject-matter expert to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

Still, it is clear where things are heading. The AI tools that will win are not the ones trying to replace your doctor or lawyer. The winners will be the tools that handle the behind-the-scenes tasks faster and more accurately than any human ever could.

If you are a professional, this is your cue.

Every job has two parts: the thinking and the doing. AI is getting better at the doing. Fast. That means the professionals who thrive will be the ones who use AI to automate the “doing” so they can spend more time thinking. More time talking with clients. More time spotting what AI will miss. More time being human.

That is what clients really want. They do not want to pay you $400/hr to fill out forms or run reports. They come to you for advice and vision they can trust. They come to you for judgment, empathy, and reassurance. Those are not things AI is replacing any time soon. But you need to give yourself the space to deliver them.

If you are still doing everything, the writing, the research, the scheduling, the billing, for yourself, you are not only wasting time, you are falling behind. The sooner you let AI handle the repetitive stuff, the more time you have to actually help people.

That is not just smart; it is the future of your profession.

Related posts

• Top 5 Patent Mistakes AI Inventors Make (0)
• Why You Need a Patent Attorney to Protect Your Invention (0)
• Clio Acquires vLex for $1 Billion: A Possible Game-Changer in Legal Tech and AI (0)

What Changed?

OpenAI updated its usage policy to make clear that users are not allowed to use ChatGPT to provide “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.” That means if you are using ChatGPT to answer questions like “Should I sue?” or “What medication should I take?” you’re now violating OpenAI’s new policy. In addition to it possibly killing you, doing so could also result in suspension or banning of your account.

Why the Change?

Two main reasons: risk and responsibility. OpenAI likely made this change because of ongoing concerns that users were relying too heavily on ChatGPT for high-stakes decisions. Both legal and medical decisions can have serious consequences. And when the advice comes from a chatbot that sometimes makes things up, those consequences can be disastrous.

Lawyers and doctors go through years of training. ChatGPT doesn’t. The worst part is that even when it’s dead wrong, ChatGPT can be very convincing. Courts have already sanctioned lawyers for submitting AI-generated briefs with fake case law. And people have reported taking incorrect medical steps based on chatbot responses. OpenAI is simply drawing a clear line to reduce those risks, both for users and for itself.

What This Means for You

If you are a consumer, do not rely on ChatGPT for specific legal or medical advice. It is really that simple. General education is fine. But if your life or livelihood depend on it, talk to a real person, preferably one professionally licensed to give that advice. Your health and your legal rights are simply too important to irreparably damage by relying on well-crafted, but ultimately erroneous, advice. 

If you are a lawyer or doctor, you should also not be using ChatGPT to give advice to clients or patients. Even if the chatbot gets some things right, that is not good enough. As the American Bar Association recently made clear, attorneys who use AI must personally verify its accuracy and protect ALL client data, not just some of it. The same goes for doctors under HIPAA.

What You Can Still Use ChatGPT For

OpenAI is not banning all legal or medical topics. You can still ask for help understanding broad legal concepts or general medical information. You just cannot rely on it for tailored advice. Think of it more like a textbook than a professional. You can learn about “what a patent is” or “how high blood pressure works,” but do not ask it to tell you what type of patent to file or what medication to take.

Final Thoughts

ChatGPT is a powerful tool. But like any tool, it has limits. The new ChatGPT policy serves as a reminder: some jobs still require human judgment. When your health or your legal rights are on the line, use the right tools, including lawyers and doctors who know what they are doing.

And if you are using ChatGPT in your business, now is the time to review your AI Acceptable Use Policy. Make sure everyone follows your internal AI policies as well as ChatGPT’s new usage policy (so you do not get banned from the platform), and make sure all of your employees know exactly what they can and cannot use AI for in your business.  

Related posts

• Why You Need a Patent Attorney to Protect Your Invention (0)
• Top 5 Patent Mistakes AI Inventors Make (0)
• Avoid Using AI When Communicating With Your Attorney (0)