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 September 30, 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
Status and scope
No AI-specific filing obligation: in force, but it imposes no disclosure, verification, or use restriction on attorney filings beyond existing rules. It provides: 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 the instrument provides
- 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.
- Historical example: the guidance said that a practitioner who knew no significant human contribution backed a claimed inventive contribution had to disclose that under 37 CFR 1.56. That test came from the February 2024 Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, which the USPTO rescinded in its entirety on November 28, 2025 (90 FR 54636); the replacement guidance states that 'There is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions.'
- 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. The 2024 guidance gave an AI example under this rule: a practitioner who knew that no significant human contribution backed a claimed inventive contribution had to disclose that fact. That example is historical. The “significant contribution” test came from the February 2024 inventorship guidance, which the USPTO rescinded in its entirety on November 28, 2025 (Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 90 FR 54636), which states that there is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions.
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.
- Compliance with the general duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56, which is unchanged. The 2024 guidance’s AI-specific “no significant human contribution” example no longer reflects current USPTO inventorship guidance: since November 28, 2025, the USPTO applies the same inventorship standard (conception) to all inventions, with “no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions” (90 FR 54636).
- 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 remains the USPTO’s current statement (listed as current on its AI resources page as of September 2026) for both patent and trademark filings, including PTAB IPRs/PGRs and TTAB oppositions and cancellations. PTAB and TTAB have no AI-specific standing orders; the Director’s February 6, 2024 memorandum to both Boards, “The Applicability of Existing Regulations as to Party and Practitioner Misconduct Related to the Use of Artificial Intelligence,” likewise relies on existing rules, and the guidance plus 37 CFR Parts 1 and 11 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