the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.


Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our


Get to know our History

Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our


A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.




From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +

Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +


Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

USPTO Seeks Stakeholder Input on AI and Inventorship

  • February 15, 2023
  • Article
  • AI & IP Update - February 2023 Newsletter

In the current issue of the Federal Register dated February 14, 2023 (read the Federal Register here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking stakeholder input on the current state of AI technologies and inventorship issues that may arise as AI technologies continue to advance. Specifically, the USPTO invites written responses to the following questions:

1. How is AI, including machine learning, currently being used in the invention creation process? Please provide specific examples. Are any of these contributions significant enough to rise to the level of a joint inventor if they were contributed by a human?

2. How does the use of an AI system in the invention creation process differ from the use of other technical tools?

3. If an AI system contributes to an invention at the same level as a human who would be considered a joint inventor, is the invention patentable under current patent laws? For example:

a. Could 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115 be interpreted such that the Patent Act only requires the listing of the natural person(s) who invent(s), such that inventions with additional inventive contributions from an AI system can be patented as long as the AI system is not listed as an inventor?

b. Does the current jurisprudence on inventorship and joint inventorship, including the requirement of conception, support the position that only the listing of the natural person(s) who invent(s) is required, such that inventions with additional inventive contributions from an AI system can be patented as long as the AI system is not listed as an inventor?

c. Does the number of human inventors impact the answer to the questions above?

4. Do inventions in which an AI system contributed at the same level as a joint inventor raise any significant ownership issues? For example:

a. Do ownership rights vest solely in the natural person(s) who invented or do those who create, train, maintain, or own the AI system have ownership rights as well? What about those whose information was used to train the AI system?

b. Are there situations in which AI-generated contributions are not owned by any entity and therefore part of the public domain?

5. Is there a need for the USPTO to expand its current guidance on inventorship to address situations in which AI significantly contributes to an invention? How should the significance of a contribution be assessed?

6. Should the USPTO require applicants to provide an explanation of contributions AI systems made to inventions claimed in patent applications? If so, how should that be implemented, and what level of contributions should be disclosed? Should contributions to inventions made by AI systems be treated differently from contributions made by other ( i.e., non-AI) computer systems?

7. What additional steps, if any, should the USPTO take to further incentivize AI-enabled innovation ( i.e., innovation in which machine learning or other computational techniques play a significant role in the invention creation process)?

8. What additional steps, if any, should the USPTO take to mitigate harms and risks from AI-enabled innovation? In what ways could the USPTO promote the best practices outlined in the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights[1]  and the AI Risk Management Framework[2]  within the innovation ecosystem?

9. What statutory changes, if any, should be considered as to U.S. inventorship law, and what consequences do you foresee for those statutory changes? For example:

a. Should AI systems be made eligible to be listed as an inventor? Does allowing AI systems to be listed as an inventor promote and incentivize innovation?

b. Should listing an inventor remain a requirement for a U.S. patent?

10. Are there any laws or practices in other countries that effectively address inventorship for inventions with significant contributions from AI systems?

The USPTO is requesting comments and response to the above questions by May 15, 2023.  Additionally, the “Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society” plans to publish a special issue focused on inventorship and AI-enabled innovation, and submissions for this special issue may be made by July 1, 2023.

We will provide own analysis of the above issues in upcoming posts on the AI Patent blog.