Why 2026 Is the Best Year Ever to File AI Patents
Artificial intelligence is reshaping every industry—and now, thanks to major shifts at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), 2026 is the single best year in history to file an AI patent. If you develop machine‑learning models, neural‑network systems, data‑processing pipelines, or AI‑driven decision technologies, the patent landscape has never been more favorable.
Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post, commenting on it, or sending unsolicited messages to the author does not create an attorney‑client relationship. No attorney‑client relationship will exist unless and until a written engagement agreement is signed by both you and the author’s law firm. You should not act or refrain from acting based on the information in this post without seeking advice from a licensed attorney who is competent to practice in your jurisdiction.
1. The USPTO’s August 2025 Memorandum Makes AI Patent Eligibility Easier
On August 4, 2025, the USPTO released a subject‑matter‑eligibility memorandum to examiners in AI‑relevant technology centers (2100, 2600, 3600). Although the USPTO stated it was not announcing new policy, the memo substantially improves outcomes for AI patent applicants in practice. Here are some key directives in the August 4, 2025 Memorandum:
Examiners must NOT categorize AI operations as “mental processes” unless they truly can be done in a human mind.
Many AI functions—such as generating outputs from spectral features, performing tensor transformations, or executing multi‑layer neural‑network inference—depend on computational processes that are fundamentally impossible for a human mind to perform. These operations require high‑dimensional linear‑algebra routines, multi‑stage signal‑processing pipelines, and billions of floating‑point computations executed across layers of interconnected neural units, often in milliseconds. For example, transforming raw audio data into spectral features requires converting signals into complex frequency‑domain matrices, then applying model parameters that number in the millions to generate predictions or synthesized outputs. Tensor operations likewise involve manipulating multi‑dimensional arrays through matrix multiplications, convolutions, and nonlinear activations—steps that cannot be carried out mentally even in simplified form. Neural‑network inference compounds this complexity by propagating data through dozens or hundreds of layers, each containing weighted summations and activation functions that collectively encode decision boundaries no human could compute manually. Because these processes cannot be practically performed in the human mind, they fall outside the “mental process” category of abstract ideas and therefore should not be rejected as ineligible under §101.
Examiners must distinguish between claims that recite an abstract idea and those that merely involve one.
Only claims that recite a judicial exception—meaning they explicitly present an abstract idea such as a mathematical formula, a mental process, or a purely conceptual method—trigger a full §101 subject‑matter‑eligibility analysis. If a claim merely involves or makes incidental use of an abstract idea while ultimately being directed to a technological implementation or a concrete practical application, examiners are instructed not to subject it to the same scrutiny. This distinction is critical for AI inventions because many claims reference elements like data processing, model training, or computational techniques without actually reciting a judicial exception, and therefore should proceed through examination without being treated as inherently ineligible.
Examiners must analyze claims holistically—not by dissecting them element‑by‑element.
When examining patent eligibility under §101, examiners must evaluate the claimed invention as a whole rather than breaking it down into isolated elements, because the inventive concept in many AI‑based technologies arises from the way multiple components interact to produce a technical improvement. This holistic approach prevents examiners from dismissing an invention simply because individual steps, viewed in isolation, might resemble routine or abstract operations. For AI‑related claims in particular, the synergy between data preprocessing, model architecture, training techniques, and inference mechanisms often embodies the real technological advancement. By analyzing the claim in its entirety, examiners are better able to recognize the integrated, non‑abstract nature of these systems and avoid improperly characterizing them as disjointed fragments lacking eligibility.
Examiners may only reject claims under §101 if the likelihood of ineligibility is greater than 50%.
Examiners may only reject claims under §101 when the likelihood of ineligibility is greater than 50%, a threshold often referred to as the USPTO’s “close‑call rule.” This standard is unusually applicant‑friendly because it prevents examiners from issuing subject‑matter‑eligibility rejections based on uncertainty, borderline interpretations, or overly broad readings of abstract‑idea jurisprudence. Instead, the memo directs examiners to make §101 rejections only when they are confident—more likely than not—that a claim is truly ineligible, ensuring that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of the applicant. For AI inventions in particular, where eligibility can hinge on nuanced interactions between technical features and algorithmic components, this rule substantially improves the odds of advancing an application through examination.
2. AI Patent Filings Are Surging—Which Makes Priority Timing Critical
Global activity in artificial intelligence patent filings is exploding: according to the 2025 Stanford AI Index Report, China continues to lead the world in AI publications and AI patents, reflecting a dramatic expansion of global patenting activity across both industry and academic sectors (Stanford HAI, 2025 AI Index Report, “Research and Development”). This surge in worldwide AI‑related patenting underscores how quickly the technological landscape is filling with competing claims and how aggressively companies and nations are working to secure ownership over core AI advancements.
This tells you two things:
If you don’t file early, someone else will.
If you do file now, USPTO examination conditions are more favorable than ever.
In a “first‑to‑file” system, delay is the single largest source of lost patent rights—especially in a field where global patenting activity is accelerating at historic speed.
3. AI Innovations Are Easier to Patent Now Than at Any Time in the Past 10 Years
Historically, AI inventions struggled with §101 (“abstract idea”) rejections.
But with the August 2025 memorandum, examiners now must:
Recognize technical improvements in AI claims
Respect that AI processing steps are not mental processes
Treat training, inference, and data‑processing pipelines as technological—not purely mathematical—steps when tied to real‑world functionality
These examiner obligations create a dramatically more consistent, predictable path to allowance for AI‑related applications.
4. Investors Often Demand AI Patent Protection
In today’s funding environment, investors increasingly view AI patents—or even well‑drafted pending applications—as a core indicator of a company’s defensibility and long‑term viability. Startups with solid patent portfolios routinely raise capital more easily, because investors gain confidence that competitors cannot quickly copy or commoditize the underlying technology. Patents also boost valuations, since protected IP can be licensed, enforced, or incorporated into future product lines, all of which enhance revenue potential. During negotiations—whether for venture financing, strategic partnerships, or acquisition—patents strengthen a company’s leverage by demonstrating technical differentiation and creating bargaining power that pure software‑only businesses lack. Finally, strong patent filings reduce friction in diligence, allowing investors to verify ownership, originality, and risk exposure far more efficiently. In a 2026 landscape defined by intense AI acceleration and global patent competition, a robust AI patent portfolio signals execution, technical depth, and long‑term defensibility—precisely the attributes investors are prioritizing.
6. Filing Now Preserves Rights Before Public Disclosures Spread
In fast‑moving AI markets, teams frequently publish research, pitch investors, release beta features, and present their work at conferences—activities that can unintentionally trigger the one‑year statutory bar or even eliminate patent rights altogether. Because any public disclosure of an invention starts the clock running, delays in filing can allow competitors to capture priority or block protection entirely. By filing early, companies safeguard their innovations before these disclosures occur, preserve their ability to secure broad patent coverage, reduce legal and competitive risks, and lock in the priority dates that determine who ultimately owns the rights to an AI invention.
Conclusion: 2026 Is the Year for AI Innovators to File Patents
With:
The USPTO’s August 2025 memo dramatically reducing §101 rejections
Accelerating AI innovation across every sector
The first‑to‑file rule making timing everything
Strong investor expectations
Faster and more affordable drafting options
…there has never been a better moment to file an artificial intelligence patent.
If your company is building models, algorithms, data‑processing systems, automated workflows, or AI‑driven solutions, 2026 is the year to secure your position.