Sisvel executive warns AI research tools threaten traditional patent standards

The immediate challenge for streaming video patent holders is the risk of invalidation if human inventorship cannot be documented through detailed prompt records. As AI identifies high-performance codecs or optimized delivery algorithms at speeds exceeding human capacity, the legal baseline for 'obviousness' is shifting. For the broader B2B ecosystem, this means companies must treat AI as standard equipment in the hands of the 'skilled person' or risk falling behind the evolving definition of innovation. Watch for a rise in patent entitlement disputes where the decisive technical contribution is first identified in an AI-generated response rather than a researcher's notebook.

The debate over AI's role in intellectual property has accelerated following high-profile legal rulings in major jurisdictions. In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Thaler v. Comptroller-General that an inventor must be a natural person, confirming that the DABUS AI system could not be named as a sole inventor. This decision mirrored the U.S. Federal Circuit's 2022 holding in Thaler v. Vidal, which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review in April 2023, effectively cementing the requirement for human inventorship under the current Patent Act (per DLA Piper, December 2023).

While the human requirement remains firm, the volume of AI-related patenting is surging. According to 2026 data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), more than 56,000 generative AI patent families were published in 2024 and 2025 alone—surpassing the cumulative output of the entire preceding decade. WIPO noted that large language models (LLMs) have overtaken generative adversarial networks (GANs) as the dominant model type for new filings, reflecting a transition toward agentic AI that actively assists in complex R&D (per WIPO, July 2026).

To address this surge, the EU AI Act transparency requirements took effect recently, and the USPTO issued revised guidance in November 2025, rescinding its 2024 framework and emphasizing that the traditional 'conception' standard applies uniformly to all inventions. This guidance treats AI as an instrument—similar to laboratory equipment or specialized software—rather than a collaborator. However, legal experts note that as AI tools become standard for 'persons of ordinary skill in the art' (PHOSITA), the bar for non-obviousness is effectively rising across technical fields like pharmaceutical research and digital signal processing (per Baker Botts, December 2025).