If AI Can Be Rightfully Named As A Joint Inventor, Is The Patent Invalid?

Why It Matters

The combined rulings create an unbridgeable gap: recognizing AI as an inventor would render patents invalid, underscoring the need for legislative action if policy wants to change the status quo.

Key Takeaways

• AI cannot be named as an inventor under current Patent Act
• Omitting a true inventor invalidates a patent unless §256 correction applies
• AI lacks capacity to execute the statutory inventor oath
• Treating AI as a tool avoids massive patent‑validity risk

Pulse Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s recent opinions crystallize a legal paradox at the intersection of artificial intelligence and patent law. In Thaler v. Vidal, the court interpreted the Patent Act’s definition of "inventor" as strictly limited to natural persons, emphasizing the oath and declaration requirements that only humans can fulfill. This ruling eliminates the possibility of formally listing an AI system such as ChatGPT as an inventor, regardless of its contribution to the inventive process.

The decision in Fortress Iron v. Digger Specialties adds a second, equally decisive layer. The court reaffirmed that accurate inventorship is a substantive validity requirement: any omission of a true inventor triggers invalidity unless the defect can be remedied through 35 U.S.C. § 256. Because an AI cannot meet the statutory criteria to be a legal inventor, the correction mechanism is unavailable, leaving the patent irreparably defective. This creates a closed doctrinal loop—AI cannot be named, and failure to name it invalidates the claim.

Practically, the rulings signal that the patent system will continue to treat AI as a sophisticated tool rather than a legal actor. Companies must ensure that human inventors are properly identified while leveraging AI for assistance, avoiding the risk of invalidation. Any shift toward recognizing machine inventorship will require explicit congressional amendment to the Patent Act, as the judiciary has made clear that existing statutes cannot accommodate such a change without jeopardizing patent enforceability.