Who owns AI?

New guidelines clarify rules on inventorship, patentability and disclosure for AI-assisted inventions in the Philippines

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming major industries not only in the Philippines, but across the globe. The incorporation of AI into how new inventions are created has become increasingly common during the past few years.

For instance, in banking and finance, applications use AI to check identities and stop fake accounts. In healthcare, AI can be applied to analyse genetic data and accelerate drug discovery. In agriculture, AI-assisted irrigation systems reduce water waste and maximise crop yields.

As more industries rely on AI, and as AI use in inventions becomes more ubiquitous, patent offices worldwide recognise the need to establish specific guidelines when it comes to patenting AI-assisted inventions.

In the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) released, in July 2025, the Examination Guidelines of Inventions, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Applications Relating to Artificial Intelligence to help both patent applicants and examiners understand the criteria for patentability of AI-assisted inventions.

So, what are AI-assisted inventions? Based on the above-mentioned AI guidelines, AI-assisted inventions are those made using AI as a tool in the inventive process. In this regard, AI means a technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human learning, comprehension, problem solving, decision making, creativity and autonomy.

Different types of AI inventions

The AI guidelines classify AI-related or AI-assisted inventions into two main types based on their subject matter:

1. 1. Core AI technologies; and
   2. Applied AI technologies.

Core AI technologies are inventions that help to advance or improve the AI technology itself. Some examples include a new type of neural network architecture, a novel training algorithm or optimisation technique or enhancements to reinforcement learning.

The inventive concept of this type of invention lies in the creation or enhancement of the AI model, learning algorithm or training methodology.

Meanwhile, applied AI technologies are inventions that utilise existing AI methods to answer technical problems. For this type of invention, the inventive concept lies in how the AI is applied and integrated to produce a technical effect in a particular field (e.g. healthcare, transportation and finance).

Subject matter patentability in Philippines

The AI guidelines state that AI-related inventions are patentable in the Philippines, provided they meet the standard requisites of patentability, namely, novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability.

However, before examination of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, an AI-related invention must first qualify as patentable subject matter.

AI-related or AI-assisted inventions are currently considered in the Philippines as a subset or sub-category of computer-implemented inventions. Therefore, to be considered patentable subject matter, such inventions must demonstrate a “technical contribution” or “technical effect” to the known art.

Particularly, this means that an AI-related invention must provide a technical solution to a technical problem, demonstrated through an external technical effect beyond the mere execution of a computer program.

For example, an AI system that is designed to control machines, or any physical device, to perform tasks, or an AI algorithm incorporated into the device to improve a technical process, may be recognised as patentable.

The AI guidelines highlight that merely implementing an abstract idea or executing a mathematical calculation, despite being implemented in a computer, without any practical application or a tangible technical outcome, would likely be deemed non-patentable; instead, the invention must display a technical contribution that solves an existing technical problem.

The AI Guidelines also furnish a five-step claim analysis as a test for subject matter eligibility of AI inventions, as follows:

Step 1: Does the claim involve computer-implemented inventions and AI?

• • No – Determine eligibility using criteria applied for other subject matters
  • Yes – Proceed to Step 2

Step 2: Is the claim directed to matter that is against public order or morality?

• • No – Proceed to Step 3
  • Yes – Ineligible subject matter

Step 3: Is the claim directed to a statutory class of invention i.e. product or process within the meaning of the Intellectual Property Code (IP Code)?

• • No – Ineligible subject matter
  • Yes – Proceed to Step 4

Step 4: Does the claim involve non-technical matters?

• • No – Eligible subject matter, i.e. the claim has technical character
  • Yes – Proceed to Step 5

Step 5: Does the claim constitute technical character after weighing all the factors?

• • No – Ineligible subject matter
  • Yes – Proceed to assess the novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability of the invention

Accordingly, the answers to the five questions above will establish whether or not an AI invention will be considered eligible for patent protection.

Disclosure, enablement requirements for AI patents

Aside from subject matter patentability, the requirements for sufficiency of disclosure and enablement must be established for an AI invention.

The general rule for a typical patent application is that it must disclose the invention in a manner that is sufficiently clear and complete for a person skilled in the art to carry it out.

Concerning AI inventions, the AI guidelines put a curial emphasis on the need for a detailed disclosure of the application that should include training datasets, a training model or algorithm, technical effect, and working examples and supporting evidence.

This level of detail ensures that the AI invention will be fully understood and implemented by a person skilled in the art.

Clear, precise AI patent claims

The AI guidelines also necessitate that the claims of AI-related inventions must be essentially clear due to the technical complexity and potentially abstract nature of AI systems and methods. Thus, every word in the claim should be technically precise, definite in scope, functionally defined, consistent with the description and free from ambiguity.

To help applicants and to improve clarity and legal certainty, the AI guidelines suggest drafting the claims as method or system claims with clearly defined technical features.

AI cannot be listed as inventor

AI, like any technological advancement, may serve as a tool to assist inventors in creating inventions and drafting patent applications. Consequently, AI-assisted and/or AI-drafted inventions may arise.

However, the AI guidelines explicitly state that because an applicant and/or inventor must have the personality to enforce intellectual property rights, AI cannot be named an applicant and/or inventor under Philippine law, as it lacks a civil personality and juridical capacity.

The individual who used AI by inputting prompts and instructions for the AI to generate the invention will still be considered the proper inventor. This is also true for joint inventorship, where all inventors must be human and AI cannot be named as co-inventors.

AI designs protectable, need human designer

The AI guidelines also tackle the registrability of AI-assisted and AI-generated industrial design applications.

In this regard, AI-assisted design refers to a design created with the support of AI tools, where a human provides significant input or guidance, while AI-generated design refers to a design produced entirely or predominantly by an AI system with minimal or no human intervention.

The AI guidelines clarify that the use of AI to create AI-assisted and AI-generated designs are not prohibited under the IP Code and therefore eligible for industrial design protection. However, same with the rule on inventorship for patents, AI cannot be allowed as a designer and/or applicant for an industrial design application due to the absence of legal personality to enforce their rights.

The AI guidelines remind the public that while the use of AI in generation of an invention or an industrial design is not prohibited under the IP Code, it is important to consider ethical and legal implications, as extensive use of AI may have its own legal consequence under other relevant laws such as copyright, unfair competition and infringement.

In conclusion, inventors, designers, and organisations filing for AI-related inventions and industrial designs must align their applications with the IPOPHL AI Guidelines to satisfy the strict technical requirements of AI inventions and enhance the likelihood of obtaining intellectual property protection.

FEDERIS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
Suites 2002 to 2006, 88 Corporate Centre,
Valero St., Salcedo Village,
Makati City 1227, Philippines
Tel: +63 2 8889 6197
Email: mail@federislaw.com.ph
www.federislaw.com.ph