USPTO (PTAB, TTAB, and patent/trademark practice): USPTO Guidance on Use of Artificial In…
Issued by the USPTO (Director Kathi Vidal) · United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO; PTAB and TTAB)
Verified April 28, 2026
- Citation
- USPTO Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
- Order date
- April 11, 2024
Summary
Practitioners must review AI-drafted submissions and verify factual and legal accuracy under 37 CFR 11.18(b), which governs every paper filed at the USPTO.
What does the order require?
- Practitioners must review AI-drafted submissions and verify factual and legal accuracy under 37 CFR 11.18(b), which governs every paper filed at the USPTO.
- The duty of candor toward a tribunal under 37 CFR 11.303 applies to AI-generated content in PTAB and TTAB proceedings.
- Disclosure of AI use is generally not required unless the USPTO specifically requests it in a particular matter.
- When AI is used in patent drafting, if the practitioner has knowledge that no significant human contribution backs a claimed inventive contribution, that fact must be disclosed under the duty of disclosure in 37 CFR 1.56.
- Existing rules (37 CFR 11.18, 11.303, 1.56) carry the binding force; this guidance interprets them as applied to AI tools but does not create new standalone obligations.
Practice areas: patent, trademark, PTAB, TTAB
What the guidance says
The USPTO published this guidance as a Federal Register notice on April 11, 2024 (Director Kathi Vidal). Per the published Summary: “based on the USPTO’s engagement with stakeholders… and a review of existing rules, the USPTO has determined that existing rules protect the USPTO’s ecosystem against such potential perils. This guidance reminds individuals involved in proceedings before the USPTO of the pertinent rules and policies.”
The guidance’s binding character runs through three pre-existing CFR provisions, not through new rule-making:
- 37 CFR 11.18(b): By signing any paper, a practitioner certifies that statements have been made after reasonable inquiry. AI-drafted submissions must be reviewed and verified, including citation accuracy and that legal arguments are warranted.
- 37 CFR 11.303: The duty of candor toward a tribunal applies to PTAB and TTAB proceedings; AI-generated content does not displace it.
- 37 CFR 1.56: Duty of disclosure in patent prosecution. If a practitioner has knowledge that no significant human contribution backs a claimed inventive contribution (i.e., AI generated the claim without sufficient human inventive input), that fact must be disclosed.
What practitioners actually must do
The guidance does not require general disclosure of AI use in USPTO filings. It does require:
- Substantive review and verification of any AI-drafted content before signing.
- Specific disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56 when AI was the source of an inventive contribution and the practitioner is aware no significant human contribution backs it.
- Compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct (37 CFR Part 11, Subpart D) including candor obligations.
Why this matters for IP practice
The April 2024 guidance is the binding USPTO position for both patent and trademark filings, including PTAB IPRs/PGRs and TTAB oppositions and cancellations. PTAB and TTAB have not issued separate AI-specific standing orders; the guidance plus 37 CFR 11 and Part 1 carries the practitioner-facing obligations. Firms with significant USPTO practice should anchor their AI policies to these CFR sections rather than waiting for a future PTAB/TTAB-specific rule.
Primary source
Federal Register notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent