US patent law recognizes only a human as an inventor — even when an AI effectively generated the drug molecule's design. On August 21, 2026, MIT Technology Review described how biotech firms handle this gap by naming humans on patents, and why lawyers believe the rules will have to change.
Key takeaways
- A US appeals court ruled in 2022 that only a natural person, not a machine, can be an inventor.
- Insilico Medicine marketed a pulmonary fibrosis drug as AI-discovered but listed five humans on the patent.
- The Biden administration issued guidance on AI co-inventorship, the Trump administration reversed it and treats AI as an ordinary tool.
- Risk: a patent naming the wrong inventor can be challenged in court.
The law: the inventor must be human
The reference case is one in which lawyer Ryan Abbott named an AI system called DABUS. The court rejected the filing without wading into debates about machine consciousness — the statutory text, which defines an inventor as a natural person, was enough. The conclusion is blunt: no human, no invention, and therefore no patent.
Companies play by the rules
In practice, biotech solves this simply: a human always appears somewhere in the process. Insilico Medicine spoke in its marketing about a pulmonary fibrosis drug discovered by AI, yet its patent filing lists five humans, including CEO Alex Zhavoronkov. His argument is practical: people still synthesize the molecule and test variants, so they are the ones named on the patent. Isomorphic Labs, an Alphabet spinout betting on AI-assisted drug design, follows a similar path.
The USPTO shifts with each administration
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has no fixed line. Under Biden it published guidance to help determine when a human qualifies as a co-inventor of an AI-assisted discovery, acknowledging that an AI system, like other tools, may perform acts that would count as inventorship if done by a human. The Trump administration rolled that back and treats AI like a calculator, with no duty to disclose its role. The result is uncertainty about how to describe AI's contribution.
| Administration | Approach to AI in inventorship |
|---|---|
| Biden | Guidance: a human can be a co-inventor; AI, like a tool, may perform inventive acts |
| Trump | Guidance rolled back; AI treated as an ordinary tool, no duty to disclose its role |
Why it matters
Patents are the foundation of biotech funding — without protection, no one commits billions to clinical trials. As AI's share of molecule design grows while the law still demands a human inventor, some patents become vulnerable to challenge. This is not an academic dispute over machine rights but a real risk to company valuations and to who profits from tomorrow's drugs.
What's next?
- The direction of USPTO guidance depends on the administration — the next political shift could again flip the rules on disclosing AI's role.
- Changing the definition of an inventor itself would require Congress to amend patent law, not just an agency guidance update.
Sources
- MIT Technology Review — When AI designs a drug, who gets the credit?
- Wikipedia — DABUS / Stephen Thaler (AI inventorship cases)
