AI Patent Landscape 2026: Key Trends and Litigation Risks

The AI patent landscape in 2026 represents one of the most dynamic and rapidly evolving areas of intellectual property law. As artificial intelligence technologies continue to transform industries from healthcare to autonomous vehicles, the race to secure patent protection has intensified dramatically. For companies developing AI systems, understanding this complex patent environment is no longer optional—it's essential for strategic survival.

The exponential growth in AI patent filings, coupled with increasing litigation activity around foundational technologies and evolving legal standards for patent eligibility, creates both unprecedented opportunities and significant risks. Whether you're an AI startup building the next breakthrough algorithm, an established tech company integrating machine learning into your products, or an investor evaluating IP risks, navigating this landscape requires deep technical expertise and strategic foresight.

This article provides general educational information about the AI patent landscape. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Patent strategy decisions should be made with qualified legal counsel who can assess your specific circumstances.

AI Patent Filing Trends

The scale of AI patent activity has reached unprecedented levels, with multiple authoritative sources confirming explosive growth across all jurisdictions. According to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), generative AI patent applications alone surged from fewer than 800 in 2014 to over 14,000 in 2023, with generative AI representing 6.1% of nearly 230,000 total AI-related patent families by 2023.1 More than 50,000 total generative AI patent applications were filed globally in the past decade, with a quarter filed in 2023 alone, demonstrating accelerating innovation velocity.42

The USPTO's Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD 2023), released in August 2024, represents a significant methodological advancement in tracking AI innovation.243 The dataset now identifies AI-related content within 15.4 million U.S. patent documents published from 1976 through 2023, using advanced machine learning architecture incorporating BERT for Patents.243 This methodology improvement achieved 68.18% precision and 78.95% recall, compared to 50% precision and 21.05% recall in the original version, revealing the true scope of AI innovation with unprecedented accuracy.43

The diffusion of AI patenting across industries has been remarkable. The percentage of U.S. patent assignees and inventor-patentees filing AI patents grew from under 5% in 1980 to over 22-25% by 2018, demonstrating AI's fundamental importance to U.S. innovation across sectors.44

Global Filing Distribution

China has established commanding leadership in AI patent filings across multiple technology categories. Between 2014 and 2023, China filed over 38,000 generative AI patent applications—six times more than the United States, which ranked second with 6,276 applications.345 By the end of 2023, China held 378,000 effective AI invention patents, growing at over 40% annually—1.4 times faster than the global average.46 This dominance extends beyond raw numbers to encompass diverse AI technologies and applications across industries.

The European Patent Office (EPO) reported a historic milestone in 2024 when computer technology—encompassing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and pattern recognition—emerged as the leading patent field for the first time, with 16,815 applications filed (+3.3% increase from 2023).447 This represents a fundamental shift in innovation priorities across European markets, with AI-related inventions experiencing significant growth while traditional digital technologies saw a 6.3% decline.47

Within China's ecosystem, specific companies dominate generative AI patent leadership according to WIPO data:48

1. Tencent — Top ranked globally for GenAI patents
2. Ping An Insurance Group — Second globally
3. Baidu — Third globally, with 19,308 total AI patent applications by end-2023 and 9,260 grants5
4. Alibaba — Sixth globally
5. ByteDance — Ninth globally

This concentration demonstrates the strategic importance Chinese companies place on AI intellectual property as a competitive advantage in global markets.

Technology-Specific Growth Patterns

Natural language processing has experienced particularly explosive growth, driven by the success of large language models and transformer architectures. After moderate growth from 2014 to 2020, generative AI patent filings accelerated dramatically following breakthrough releases like GPT-3, ChatGPT, and similar systems.1

Computer vision patents have shown steady growth across object detection, image segmentation, and video analysis applications. Recent patents include Adobe's scene graph generation system (Patent 12,346,827, issued July 2025) and advanced video instance segmentation methods using recurrent encoder-based transformers.67

Edge AI and inference optimisation represent emerging high-growth areas, with companies like Intel positioning cost-effective accelerators like Gaudi 3 chips, which offer approximately 80% better performance-per-dollar than competing solutions for certain workloads.8

Key Technology Areas

Natural Language Processing

The transformer architecture has fundamentally reshaped NLP patenting activity. Google's dominance in generative AI patents reflects its early investments in attention mechanisms and BERT-style models.9 Recent patents demonstrate increasing sophistication, such as Oracle's multi-task learning system (Patent Application 20250252261) that trains transformer models simultaneously on named entity recognition, relation extraction, and assertion detection.10

OpenAI has built substantial patent protection around large language model technologies while maintaining a defensive patent strategy. The company has filed over 150 AI-related patent applications as part of an aggressive intellectual property expansion, including contrastive pre-training methods for generating text and code embeddings (Patent 12,073,299 B2) and multi-task automatic speech recognition systems using transformer architectures (Patent 12,079,587 B1).111253 OpenAI commits to using its patents defensively only, pledging to refrain from asserting patent claims against parties unless they threaten OpenAI, initiate proceedings against the company, or engage in activities that harm OpenAI or its users.54 Beyond patents, OpenAI has pursued trademark protection, filing to trademark "GPT" and its o1 reasoning models with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.5455

The evolution from general BERT models to domain-specific applications has created new patent opportunities. Recent research on PatentBERT and ModernBERT architectures demonstrates how transformer models optimised for patent documents can achieve 3× faster inference while maintaining competitive performance.13 This technical advancement translates to valuable patent positions in specialised AI applications.

Computer Vision

Computer vision patents span multiple interconnected areas, from basic object detection to complex scene understanding. Nokia Technologies holds foundational patents for object detection with neural networks (Patent US10614339B2), while Microsoft's earlier work on neural network-based object detection and classification (Patent US9858496B2) established key prior art in the field.1415

Recent innovations focus on advanced architectures and specialised applications. NVIDIA's patents cover object detection using multiple neural networks (Patent US12462377B1), reflecting the company's emphasis on parallel processing and GPU optimisation for computer vision workloads.16

Image segmentation and scene analysis represent active areas of patent development. Advanced systems now combine multiple AI techniques, as demonstrated by Adobe's scene graph generation patent that integrates object detection with external knowledge bases to improve accuracy on long-tail relationships.6

Training and Optimisation

Training methodology patents have become increasingly important as AI systems grow more complex. Tesla's systems for training machine models with augmented data, including techniques like cutout, demonstrate how established companies are securing IP around training improvements.17 IBM's data augmentation methods for artificial intelligence model training similarly protect key training optimisations.18

Model compression represents a critical patent area as companies seek to deploy AI efficiently. Amazon's reinforcement learning approach for training compression policies (Patent US11501173B1) enables automated determination of optimal compression strategies, addressing a key deployment challenge.19 Tsinghua University and Huawei's joint patent on neural network compression methods covers compression techniques alongside training methods, demonstrating academic-industry collaboration in this space.20

Loss function optimisation, data augmentation strategies, and distributed training methods continue generating patent activity as companies optimise AI system performance and reduce computational costs.

Inference and Deployment

Edge AI and on-device inference have emerged as high-value patent areas. Qualcomm's emphasis on the Hexagon Neural Processing Unit (NPU) and heterogeneous computing approach targets on-device generative AI through integration of NPU, GPU, CPU, and memory subsystems.21 This architecture enables high-performance AI inference at low power consumption, critical for mobile and edge applications.

Intel's artificial intelligence inference architecture with hardware acceleration (Patent US20220358370A1) and selective execution offload to edge resources (Patent US20190141120A1) demonstrate systematic approaches to inference optimisation.2223 These patents protect key methods for distributed AI computation across edge and cloud resources.

Tesla's AI inference compiler and runtime tool chain (Patent WO2024073115A1) represents industry focus on end-to-end optimisation of AI inference pipelines, from model compilation through runtime execution.24

Major Players in AI Patents

Technology Giants

Google has established itself as the global leader in AI patents through systematic investment in foundational technologies. By mid-2025, Google had filed 1,837 AI-related patent applications globally—approximately 50% more than Microsoft and nearly double IBM's count.49 Google leads in both generative AI and agentic AI patents, with 880 AI patent applications in the U.S. alone compared to 701 for Microsoft and 684 for IBM.49 Google's portfolio includes the highly valuable Transformer architecture patent protecting the "Attention Is All You Need" mechanism, which has been cited hundreds of times by virtually every major language model developed since 2017.49 Key patents include US10452978B2 covering "Attention-based sequence transduction neural networks" with inventors from the original transformer paper.50

Microsoft ranks second in U.S. generative AI patents and maintains the third largest overall AI patent portfolio globally.51 With 107,170 patents globally (53,545 granted, over 65% active), Microsoft focuses on quality over quantity.52 The company ranks 10th globally in generative AI patents with 377 patents, while placing 3rd in broader AI patent applications behind IBM (1,591 applications) and Google.51 Microsoft's recent innovation spans cloud computing (1,701 patents), networking solutions (1,353 patents), cybersecurity (1,033 patents), computer vision (668 patents), and speech/NLP (403 patents).52

Meta and Amazon maintain substantial but more focused patent portfolios. Amazon's approximately 8,000 AI patents concentrate on e-commerce optimisation, cloud computing services, and voice assistants, while Meta's patents emphasise social media applications, content moderation, and metaverse technologies.25 Notably, despite their prominence in AI development, Meta and OpenAI do not rank in the top 10 generative AI patent holders globally.49

Chinese Technology Leaders

Huawei ranked first in the "2025 China Enterprises Patent Strength Top 500" list with a score of 99.95, maintaining leadership for eight consecutive years in PCT international patent applications across communications, terminal devices, automotive technology, and AI.26 The company's patent strategy combines domestic protection with international filing to secure global market positions.

Tencent and Baidu lead China's generative AI patent applications, with Baidu specifically ranking among the top ten global AI patent applicants.5 Baidu's 1,432 large language model patents (with 651 granted) demonstrate focused investment in transformer and generative AI technologies.5

Other major Chinese players include ByteDance, Alibaba Group, Xiaomi, ZTE, OPPO, and VIVO, creating a comprehensive ecosystem of AI patent development across consumer applications, enterprise services, and infrastructure.26

Semiconductor Companies

NVIDIA leads in agentic AI patents globally, reflecting its focus on GPU acceleration and AI training infrastructure.9 The company's patents span neural network acceleration, multi-GPU training systems, and inference optimisation.

Intel positions its patent portfolio around cost-effective AI acceleration, as demonstrated by the Gaudi 3 accelerator strategy focusing on inference workloads.8 Intel's patents cover artificial intelligence inference architecture with hardware acceleration and selective offload strategies.

Qualcomm emphasises edge AI and mobile applications through its Snapdragon platforms, with patents covering on-device inference, power optimisation, and heterogeneous computing architectures.21

Academic Institutions and Research Organisations

Stanford University contributes significant AI patent research, particularly around patent system analysis and AI applications to intellectual property. Stanford's research reveals how AI is reshaping patent disclosures and identifies challenges around disclosure requirements and quality control.27

Carnegie Mellon University operates the Centre for AI and Patent Analysis (CAPA), which develops patent-specific AI algorithms and creates richer patent datasets.28 CMU's Patent Examination Initiative assists USPTO examiners and supports research into patent analytics and law office operations.28

MIT, while not explicitly mentioned in recent patent filings data, continues contributing to foundational AI research that influences commercial patent development across the industry.

Non-Practising Entities

NPE activity in AI patents has increased significantly, with specific campaigns targeting AI technologies. Unified Patents identified a new NPE campaign involving AI patents owned by the Artificial Intelligence Industry Association Incorporated, which owns patents related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies asserted against companies including Osaro, Topaz Labs, Elementary Robotics, and Geisel Software.63 Unified Patents developed "OPAL for GenAI," a generative AI patent landscape tool available to members of their Artificial Intelligence Zone to help identify and analyse AI patent activity and risk.63

NPE district court filings jumped 21.6% in 2025 compared to 2024, reflecting increased assertion activity.64 However, PTAB institution rates against NPEs fell significantly to 33.6% in Q4 2025 from 64.6% in Q1 2025, prompting NPEs to shift toward ex parte reexamination requests as an alternative validity challenge strategy.64 Ex parte reexamination requests reached record levels, doubling from the first half of 2023 to the first half of 2024, representing a major shift in patent challenge strategies.29

The Eastern District of Texas remains the dominant venue for patent litigation, leading all districts in new filings with over 1,000 new patent lawsuits in 2024—more than twice as many as the next closest district.56

Active AI Patent Litigation

Scale and Growth of AI Litigation

AI-related patent disputes have exploded dramatically since 2020, with comprehensive litigation data confirming unprecedented growth. More than 1,000 AI-related patent lawsuits have been filed globally, with nearly two-thirds occurring in the United States.30 Generative AI patent litigation in the U.S. has surged by 500% since 2021, involving leading technology and software companies.30

According to Lex Machina's 2025 Patent Litigation Report, overall U.S. patent case filings increased by 22% in 2024, with over 1,000 new patent lawsuits filed.56 This recovery marked a significant rebound after a 2023 decline, driven largely by increases from non-High-Volume Plaintiffs who filed over 16% more lawsuits compared to historical averages.56 Record damages were awarded in 2024: $4.3 billion total across over 90 patent cases, the highest in Lex Machina's 10-year dataset and representing a 20% increase over 2023.56

This litigation surge reflects the rapid commercialisation of AI technologies and the overlapping nature of patent boundaries in foundational AI techniques. As patent filings jumped from fewer than 800 in 2014 to over 14,000 in 2023, the risk of conflicting claims and infringement disputes has increased proportionally.30

High-Profile Cases and Venue Trends

Recent litigation demonstrates the breadth of AI patent disputes across multiple technology areas and jurisdictions. NVIDIA faces ongoing disputes including NVIDIA v. Neural AI LLC (IPR2025-00606), involving patent challenges over neural network technology.31 These cases often involve fundamental questions about the scope and validity of AI-related patents.

Venue Concentration: The Eastern District of Texas reclaimed its position as the leading venue for patent litigation, leading all districts in new filings in both 2023 and 2024 with over 1,000 new patent lawsuits—more than twice as many as the next closest district.56 Judge James Rodney Gilstrap presided over nearly 800 new patent cases in 2024, more than six times his closest peer.56 This resurgence reversed the venue distribution that had favoured the Western District of Texas and District of Delaware between 2018-2022.56

International Developments: The English Court of Appeal ruled in 2024 that neural networks receive no special patent treatment under UK law, concluding that characterising and recommending media files using neural networks does not deserve preferential patenting status.32 This ruling affects the global landscape for neural network patent enforcement and reflects varying international approaches to AI patent eligibility.

Settlement Patterns and Industry Response

Settlement trends in AI patent litigation show companies increasingly preferring negotiated resolutions over extended court battles. The rapid pace of AI development means that lengthy litigation can quickly become outdated as technologies evolve, creating incentives for quick resolution.

Industry responses include increased defensive patent filing, cross-licensing agreements, and patent pool formations. Companies are building larger patent portfolios not necessarily for offensive litigation but to establish stronger negotiating positions in settlement discussions.

Technology Areas with Most Disputes

Transformer Architectures: Patents covering attention mechanisms, encoder-decoder structures, and training methods for transformer models generate significant litigation activity. These foundational technologies appear in numerous AI applications, creating multiple potential infringement scenarios.

Training Data and Methods: Disputes increasingly involve patents covering training data selection, preprocessing methods, and synthetic data generation. As data becomes recognised as a key competitive advantage, patents protecting data-related innovations become valuable enforcement assets.

Deployment and Inference: Edge AI deployment, model optimisation, and inference acceleration methods generate litigation as companies compete for efficient AI deployment solutions.

Legal Challenges for AI Patents

Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility

The USPTO issued comprehensive guidance on July 16, 2024, addressing patent subject matter eligibility for AI inventions under Section 101, prompted by President Biden's Executive Order on AI development.3357 This guidance updates the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to address how the Alice/Mayo framework applies to AI inventions, providing new examples and case law to clarify subject matter eligibility analysis.57

The analysis uses the established Alice/Mayo two-step framework: Step 1 determines if claims are directed to patent-ineligible concepts (laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas), while Step 2A assesses whether claim elements individually and in combination transform the ineligible concept into patent-eligible subject matter.57 For AI inventions, the USPTO guidance suggests that arguments focused on Step 2A may be most effective, as many AI inventions fall into the abstract idea category because they involve mathematical concepts, methods of organising human activity, or mental processes.57

The July 2024 update introduced three illustrative examples: Example 47 covers anomaly detection using artificial neural networks (eligible when claims integrate the exception into practical application by improving network security), Example 48 addresses AI-based speech separation methods, and Example 49 covers AI models for personalising medical treatment.34

Recent Court Applications: The Federal Circuit's decision in AI Visualise, Inc. v. Nuance Communications (April 4, 2024) demonstrates continued Section 101 scrutiny, affirming dismissal of medical imaging visualisation patents as directed to an abstract idea without providing an inventive step that transformed the abstract concept into patent-eligible subject matter.58

August 2025 USPTO Standards: The August 2025 guidance instructed examiners not to classify complex neural network operations, multidimensional matrix calculations, or hardware-specific AI implementations as unpatentable mental processes.35 This guidance raises the bar for subject matter eligibility rejections and provides applicants new defensive tools against Section 101 challenges.35

Prior Art Landscape Challenges

The AI patent landscape faces unprecedented prior art challenges due to the rapid publication of research on academic platforms and extensive open source development. ArXiv serves as a central repository for AI research preprints with active daily submissions in artificial intelligence and related fields, often disclosing techniques months or years before patent applications are filed.59 The Hugging Face Model Hub has emerged as the primary global platform for sharing open-weight AI models since 2019, hosting over 2 million models with 1.7 billion cumulative downloads.60

A comprehensive analysis of 851,000 models on Hugging Face reveals significant shifts in the open model ecosystem, including a 17× increase in average model size, rapid growth in multimodal generation (3.4×), quantisation (5×), and mixture-of-experts architectures (7×).60 Economic power in the open model ecosystem has rebalanced away from US tech giants, with unaffiliated developers, community organisations, and Chinese companies gaining market share as of 2025.60

Academic research tools are advancing to address these challenges. The PANORAMA dataset provides 8,143 U.S. patent examination records with full decision trails, enabling research on how LLMs assess novelty and non-obviousness against prior art.61 PaECTER, a fine-tuned BERT model available on Hugging Face, specialises in patent similarity and prior art search using examiner-added citations.62

Stanford research published in Nature Biotechnology (January 2025) found that AI can exacerbate patent law challenges, particularly around disclosure requirements and quality control.27 The research recommends raising disclosure standards and increasing human oversight beyond current USPTO guidance requiring human review of AI-drafted applications.27

Claim Scope Issues

Patent applications with overly broad "AI for X" claims face increasing rejection rates. Patent offices worldwide have become more sophisticated in identifying and rejecting claims that merely apply generic AI techniques to conventional problems without sufficient technical contribution.

Successful AI patents typically demonstrate specific technical improvements: enhanced accuracy through novel architectures, reduced computational requirements through optimisation techniques, or improved performance through innovative training methods. Generic applications of known AI techniques to conventional problems face significant challenges during examination.

The evolution toward more specific, technically detailed claims reflects both patent office guidance and applicant strategies to overcome rejections. This trend favours applicants with deep technical expertise who can articulate specific innovations beyond routine AI applications.

Costs and Practical Realities

Patent Filing and Prosecution Costs

AI patent portfolios require substantial investment to build and maintain. Filing costs vary significantly by jurisdiction and complexity:

Jurisdiction	Filing + Prosecution	Maintenance (20 years)	Total Estimated Cost
United States	$15,000–$30,000	$12,000–$15,000	$27,000–$45,000
European Patent (EPO)	$25,000–$50,000	$30,000–$50,000	$55,000–$100,000
China (CNIPA)	$8,000–$15,000	$5,000–$10,000	$13,000–$25,000
UK (UKIPO)	$8,000–$15,000	$6,000–$10,000	$14,000–$25,000
PCT (international phase)	$5,000–$10,000	N/A (national phase)	Entry point only

For AI startups building defensive portfolios, we typically see initial filing programmes of 10-20 patents costing £200,000–£500,000 over the first three years, with ongoing maintenance and expansion adding £50,000–£150,000 annually.

Litigation Cost Exposure

Patent litigation in AI technologies creates substantial financial exposure that companies must factor into strategic planning:

United States:

• Cases under $1 million at stake: $700,000–$1.5 million through trial
• Cases $1–10 million at stake: $1.5–$2.5 million through trial
• Cases over $25 million at stake: $3–$5 million through trial
• Record damages in 2024: $4.3 billion across 90+ cases56

United Kingdom:

• IPEC (capped costs): Maximum £60,000 liability phase, £30,000 damages phase
• Patents Court (uncapped): £500,000–£2 million+ through trial
• Shorter time to trial than U.S. courts

International coordination across multiple jurisdictions can multiply costs significantly. Companies facing patent assertions in both the U.S. and Europe should budget for parallel proceedings that can exceed £5 million in combined costs.

Freedom to Operate Analysis Investment

Given the dense AI patent landscape, freedom to operate analysis represents essential risk management:

Scope	Cost Range	Turnaround	When Appropriate
Preliminary screening	£2,000–£5,000	1–2 weeks	Early product concept validation
Standard FTO	£15,000–£30,000	4–8 weeks	Pre-launch for defined products
Comprehensive FTO	£40,000–£80,000	8–12 weeks	High-value launches, M&A due diligence
Ongoing monitoring	£5,000–£15,000/year	Continuous	Post-launch landscape tracking

The investment in FTO analysis is modest compared to litigation exposure. We consistently advise that £30,000 spent on FTO analysis before launch provides far better risk management than £2 million defending litigation afterward.

Patent Insurance Options

IP insurance products have evolved to address AI patent risks:

• Defence cost insurance: £30,000–£100,000 annual premium for £1–5 million coverage
• Abatement insurance: Covers costs of design-arounds if patents found invalid
• Portfolio insurance: Protects against invalidation of company's own patents

Insurance underwriters increasingly require comprehensive FTO analysis before issuing policies, creating additional incentive for proactive patent clearance.

Litigation Risks for AI Companies

Foundational Technology Patents

Companies developing AI systems face significant exposure to patents covering foundational technologies like transformer architectures and attention mechanisms. The "Attention Is All You Need" paper from 2017 introduced concepts now subject to numerous patent applications and grants.36 Any company implementing modern NLP systems using transformer architectures must navigate this complex patent landscape.

Neural network training methods, including backpropagation optimisations, loss function improvements, and distributed training techniques, create additional exposure areas. As these techniques become standard practice across AI development, patent holders may assert broad claims against multiple implementers.

Open Source Complications

A critical misconception among AI developers is that using open source frameworks provides patent protection. Open source licences typically grant copyright permissions but do not include patent licences unless explicitly stated. Companies using TensorFlow, PyTorch, or other frameworks may still face patent infringement claims from third parties.

This creates particular challenges for startups and smaller companies that rely heavily on open source AI tools. While these frameworks enable rapid development and deployment, they don't resolve underlying patent risks for the techniques being implemented.

Major tech companies partially address this through patent pledges and defensive patent pools, but coverage remains incomplete. Companies must conduct independent patent analysis even when building on established open source foundations.

Data and Training Patents

Patents covering training data selection, preprocessing methods, and synthetic data generation represent emerging risk areas. As companies recognise data quality as a competitive advantage, patents protecting data-related innovations become valuable enforcement assets.

Recent patents demonstrate this trend: IBM's synthetic data generation methods (Patent US20240104168A1), Mastercard's advanced synthetic data training systems (Patent US20240046012A1), and Robert Bosch's generative model optimisation techniques (Patent 12,242,957) create potential infringement risks for companies developing similar capabilities.373839

Data augmentation techniques, including Tesla's cutout methods and IBM's AI model training optimisations, further expand the patent landscape around training data manipulation.1718 Companies must evaluate patent exposure not only for model architectures but also for data processing pipelines.

What NOT to Do: Critical Patent Mistakes

We've seen companies make devastating errors when navigating the AI patent landscape. These mistakes transform manageable IP challenges into existential business threats:

Don't Assume Open Source Means Patent-Free: The most dangerous misconception in AI development is assuming that open source frameworks like PyTorch or TensorFlow provide patent protection. They don't. Open source licences grant copyright permissions, not patent licences. We regularly encounter companies that built entire products on open source AI frameworks without conducting patent analysis, then faced infringement claims covering the underlying techniques.

Don't Ignore Geographic Variations: Patent landscapes differ dramatically by jurisdiction. China's 378,000 effective AI patents create different exposure than the U.S. landscape, which differs again from European coverage. Companies that analyse only U.S. patents before global product launches face unexpected exposure in other markets.

Don't Wait Until After Launch for FTO: Freedom to operate analysis conducted after product launch provides far less strategic value than pre-launch analysis. Once you've committed to manufacturing, marketing, and distribution, your options narrow dramatically. Patent holders know this and strategically time enforcement to maximise leverage.

Don't Underestimate NPE Risk: Non-practising entities filed 21.6% more patent assertions in 2025 than 2024.64 AI companies are increasingly targeted because the technology area involves high revenue potential and foundational patents with broad applicability. We've seen startups receive NPE demand letters within months of successful product launches.

Don't Conflate "Novel" with "Safe to Commercialise": Having your own patent provides no freedom to operate. Your patent on an incremental improvement can still infringe someone else's broader, earlier patent covering the foundational technique. Companies that assume their granted patents mean freedom from infringement claims consistently face expensive surprises.

Don't Skip Validity Analysis When Facing Assertions: Not every patent assertion reflects a valid, enforceable patent. Ex parte reexamination requests doubled from 2023 to 2024,29 reflecting increased scrutiny of AI patent validity. Companies that immediately capitulate to licensing demands often pay for rights they didn't actually need to acquire.

Don't Neglect Prior Art in Academic Literature: AI patent examiners increasingly miss prior art published on ArXiv, GitHub, or Hugging Face.5960 Companies facing patent assertions should systematically search academic and open source repositories for invalidating prior art that patent examiners may have overlooked.

Decision Framework: Navigating AI Patent Strategy

Use this framework to assess your company's AI patent position and determine appropriate strategic responses:

Assess Your Exposure Level

High Exposure — Comprehensive strategy required:

• Developing products using transformer architectures, attention mechanisms, or large language models
• Entering markets where Chinese tech giants (Tencent, Baidu, Huawei) hold dominant patent positions
• Building on foundational AI techniques patented by Google, Microsoft, or IBM
• Commercialising in sectors with active NPE enforcement (Eastern District of Texas activity)
• Revenue projections above $10 million annually from AI-enabled products

Medium Exposure — Targeted analysis recommended:

• Implementing established AI techniques in domain-specific applications
• Entering markets with moderate patent density (computer vision, speech recognition)
• Building on open source frameworks without independent patent clearance
• Geographic expansion to new jurisdictions beyond initial market

Lower Exposure — Monitoring appropriate:

• Research-stage AI development without near-term commercialisation
• Using AI for internal tools without external product deployment
• Operating in sectors with sparse AI patent coverage

Strategic Response Options

Exposure Level	Recommended Actions	Budget Range
High	Comprehensive FTO, defensive portfolio building, patent monitoring, insurance evaluation	£100,000–£500,000 annually
Medium	Targeted FTO for key features, selective patent filing, periodic landscape review	£30,000–£150,000 annually
Lower	Annual landscape monitoring, reactive FTO when commercialisation approaches	£5,000–£30,000 annually

Timing Considerations

Before seed funding: Basic patent landscape understanding to identify obvious blocking patents Before Series A: Preliminary FTO on core technology; begin defensive filing programme Before Series B+: Comprehensive FTO; expand patent portfolio; establish monitoring systems Before product launch: Final FTO review; insurance evaluation; enforcement contingency planning Before M&A or IPO: Full IP due diligence package including FTO, validity opinions, portfolio valuation

Strategic Considerations

For AI Developers

Freedom to Operate Analysis has become essential for AI companies. Traditional FTO analysis relied on keyword-based searches, but AI-assisted FTO examines how claimed features operate functionally, detecting infringement risks even when terminology differs across patents.40

NPEs targeted 1,889 defendants in 2024—a 21.6% increase over 2023—making comprehensive patent analysis critical for product launches and licensing deals.40 AI companies should conduct FTO analysis early in product development, before finalising specifications, to allow design flexibility and cost-effective pivoting.41

Defensive Patent Portfolios provide negotiating leverage in potential disputes. Companies should file patents covering their innovations not necessarily for offensive enforcement but to establish cross-licensing opportunities and settlement positions. The rapid pace of AI development makes broad defensive portfolios particularly valuable.

Competitor Monitoring requires systematic tracking of patent applications from major players, emerging competitors, and NPEs. Patent publications lag filing by 18 months, so companies must monitor both published applications and granted patents to identify emerging risks.

For Patent Holders

Enforcement Opportunities in the AI space have expanded significantly as AI technologies achieve commercial deployment across industries. Patent holders with foundational AI patents may find licensing opportunities across multiple market segments as AI adoption accelerates.

Licensing Programmes should account for the rapid evolution of AI technologies. Traditional licensing models may require adaptation for AI patents, where technologies evolve quickly and implementation approaches vary significantly across applications.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Risks have increased dramatically, with ex parte reexamination requests doubling from the first half of 2023 to the first half of 2024.29 Patent holders must prepare for increased challenges to patent validity, particularly for broad AI-related claims.

For Investors

Due Diligence on Patent Risks requires specialised expertise in AI patent analysis. Traditional patent due diligence may miss AI-specific risks around Section 101 eligibility, prior art in academic publications, and open source complications.

Portfolio Quality Assessment should evaluate not just patent counts but the technical depth and commercial relevance of claims. AI patents covering foundational techniques may provide broader protection than application-specific patents, but face greater validity challenges.

Market Positioning Analysis should consider how patent portfolios support or constrain competitive positioning. Companies with strong defensive portfolios may have advantages in fundraising and strategic partnerships due to reduced litigation risk.

Future Outlook

Continued Filing Growth

Patent filings in AI technologies will continue expanding as AI applications penetrate new industries. Healthcare AI, autonomous vehicle systems, financial services automation, and industrial AI applications represent emerging high-growth areas for patent activity.

The integration of AI into existing products and services will drive continued patent filings as companies seek protection for AI-enhanced features and capabilities. This trend extends patent activity beyond dedicated AI companies to traditional industries implementing AI technologies.

Generative AI patent filings are expected to maintain high growth rates as the technology matures and finds applications beyond text generation. Video generation, code generation, scientific research assistance, and other specialised applications will drive continued innovation and patent activity.

Increased Litigation as Market Matures

As AI markets mature and commercial stakes increase, patent litigation will continue growing. The 500% increase in generative AI patent litigation since 2021 represents an early indicator of future trends as more patents are granted and enforced.30

Cross-industry patent disputes will become more common as AI technologies deployed in one sector conflict with patents held by companies in different sectors. The foundational nature of many AI techniques creates potential for disputes across traditional industry boundaries.

International litigation coordination will become more complex as companies face patent challenges across multiple jurisdictions with different legal standards and enforcement mechanisms.

Evolving Legal Standards

Section 101 Guidance Evolution: The USPTO's August 2025 guidance represents ongoing efforts to clarify patent eligibility standards for AI technologies.35 Further guidance updates are expected as the patent office gains experience with AI patent examination and responds to Federal Circuit decisions.

International Harmonisation Efforts: Patent offices worldwide are working toward more consistent standards for AI patent examination. The EPO's leadership in AI patent grants and China's massive filing volumes create pressure for international coordination on examination practices.

Prior Art Recognition Systems: Patent offices are developing better systems for identifying relevant prior art in academic publications, open source repositories, and other non-patent literature. These improvements will affect both patent prosecution and validity challenges.

We expect continued evolution in legal standards as courts, patent offices, and policymakers adapt to the unique challenges of AI patent protection and enforcement.

Conclusion

The AI patent landscape in 2026 represents both the greatest opportunity and the highest risk environment in modern intellectual property law. Companies that navigate this landscape successfully will establish sustainable competitive advantages, while those that ignore patent considerations face potentially devastating litigation exposure.

For AI developers, the message is clear: patent considerations must be integrated into product development from the earliest stages. Freedom to operate analysis, defensive patent filing, and ongoing competitor monitoring are no longer optional activities—they are essential business practices for sustainable AI innovation.

Patent holders and investors have unprecedented opportunities to capitalise on the AI revolution, but success requires sophisticated understanding of the technical, legal, and commercial dynamics shaping this rapidly evolving landscape.

Immediate priorities for AI companies:

1. Assess current exposure — Identify which foundational AI patents your products may implicate
2. Conduct FTO analysis — Invest £15,000–£80,000 in proactive clearance rather than £2–5 million defending litigation
3. Build defensive portfolio — File patents covering your innovations to establish negotiating leverage
4. Monitor landscape evolution — Track competitor filings and NPE activity systematically
5. Plan for enforcement — Develop contingency strategies before patent assertions arrive

At WeAreMonsters, we've made AI patent analysis our speciality because we recognise that artificial intelligence represents the future of innovation across industries. Our deep technical expertise in machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, combined with our strategic understanding of patent law, positions us to help clients navigate the most complex challenges in AI intellectual property.

Whether you're developing the next breakthrough AI system, protecting valuable AI innovations, or evaluating patent risks for investment decisions, the stakes have never been higher. The companies that succeed in this environment will be those that combine technical excellence with strategic intellectual property planning.

Get in touch with our AI patent experts to discuss how we can help you navigate the AI patent landscape and protect your innovations in this rapidly evolving field.

---

Sources

1. Preparing for Exponential Growth in AI Patent Litigation — Exponent analysis of global AI patent litigation trends
2. USPTO Artificial Intelligence Strategy — January 2025 — Official USPTO AI strategy document
3. China leads the patents race for generative AI, with Tencent and Baidu topping the list — CNBC report on Chinese AI patent leadership
4. EPO Publishes Patent Index 2024: Growth in Artificial Intelligence and Battery Technology Innovations — European Patent Office 2024 statistics
5. Baidu ranks top 10 in AI patent applicants globally — China Daily report on Baidu's patent statistics
6. U.S. Patent for Generating scene graphs from digital images using external knowledge and image reconstruction Patent (Patent # 12,346,827 issued July 1, 2025) — Adobe scene graph generation patent
7. US20250252740A1 — System and method for video instance segmentation via recurrent encoder-based transformers — Video segmentation transformer patent
8. Outrun By Nvidia, Intel Pitches Gaudi 3 Chips For Cost-Effective AI Systems — Intel Gaudi 3 performance analysis
9. Exclusive: Google dominates AI patent applications — Axios analysis of AI patent rankings
10. U.S. Patent Application for MULTI-TASK LEARNING FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING TASKS USING A SHARED PRE-TRAINED LANGUAGE MODEL Patent Application (Application #20250252261 issued August 7, 2025) — Oracle multi-task learning patent
11. Patents Assigned to OpenAI Opco LLC — Justia Patents Search — OpenAI patent portfolio listing
12. How OpenAI's GPT Patents Secured Its Leadership in AI Innovation — Analysis of OpenAI patent strategy
13. Patent Language Model Pretraining with ModernBERT — ModernBERT patent application research
14. US10614339B2 — Object detection with neural network — Nokia object detection patent
15. US9858496B2 — Object detection and classification in images — Microsoft object detection patent
16. US12462377B1 — Object detection using one or more neural networks — NVIDIA object detection patent
17. US11893774B2 — Systems and methods for training machine models with augmented data — Tesla data augmentation patent
18. US20230121812A1 — Data augmentation for training artificial intelligence model — IBM data augmentation patent
19. US11501173B1 — Reinforcement learning for training compression policies for machine learning models — Amazon model compression patent
20. WO2022068314A1 — Neural network training method, neural network compression method and related devices — Tsinghua/Huawei compression patent
21. Unlocking on-device generative AI with an NPU and heterogeneous computing — Qualcomm edge AI technical document
22. US20220358370A1 — Artificial intelligence inference architecture with hardware acceleration — Intel AI inference patent
23. Technologies for providing selective offload of execution to the edge — Intel edge computing patent
24. WO2024073115A1 — AI inference compiler and runtime tool chain — Tesla AI compiler patent
25. AI Patent Showdown: Google vs. Microsoft vs. Amazon — Who Holds the Most? — Patent portfolio comparison analysis
26. 2025 Research Report on Patent Applications by Chinese Tech Companies — Chinese patent strength rankings
27. Research reveals how AI is reshaping patent disclosures — Stanford patent research findings
28. Center for AI and Patent Analysis — CMU patent analysis centre information
29. Patent Dispute Report: 2024 Mid-Year Report — Unified Patents NPE litigation analysis
30. Preparing for Exponential Growth in AI Patent Litigation — Comprehensive AI litigation growth analysis
31. USPTO PTACTS Public Information — NVIDIA v. Neural AI LLC IPR case
32. English Court of Appeal makes Emotional Perception neural network hard to patent — UK neural network patent ruling
33. 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 2024) (Bitlaw) — USPTO Section 101 guidance analysis
34. 2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49 — USPTO AI patent examples
35. Navigating Patent Eligibility in the Age of AI: Strategic Insights from the USPTO's August 2025 Guidance — August 2025 USPTO guidance analysis
36. Author inference based on well-known 2017 "Attention Is All You Need" paper establishing transformer architecture
37. US20240104168A1 — Synthetic data generation — IBM synthetic data patent
38. US20240046012A1 — Systems and methods for advanced synthetic data training and generation — Mastercard synthetic data patent
39. U.S. Patent for Device and method for the generation of synthetic data in generative networks Patent (Patent # 12,242,957 issued March 4, 2025) — Robert Bosch synthetic data patent
40. AI-Powered Freedom to Operate: Streamlining Patent Risk Analysis — AI-assisted FTO analysis guide
41. AI for FTO (Freedom to Operate) Searches Explained — FTO strategic implementation guide
42. China leading generative AI patents race, UN report says — Reuters analysis of WIPO generative AI data
43. USPTO Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset (AIPD) 2023 — Official USPTO AIPD 2023 update methodology
44. Inventing AI: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents — USPTO research on AI patent diffusion
45. China leading generative AI patents race, UN report says — Reuters WIPO data analysis
46. China owns 378,000 AI patents, rising faster than global average — China government statistics on AI patents
47. Patent Index 2024 — European Patent Office 2024 statistics
48. Key findings and insights — WIPO generative AI report key findings
49. Most Valuable AI Patents Revealed: From Google's Transformers to IBM's $400M Licensing Empire — Legal analysis of AI patent portfolios
50. US10452978B2 — Attention-based sequence transduction neural networks — Google's foundational transformer patent
51. Microsoft ranks 10th in the world for AI patents. Most companies beating it are in China — Microsoft AI patent ranking analysis
52. Microsoft Patents — Insights and Stats (Updated 2024) — Comprehensive Microsoft patent portfolio analysis
53. How Many AI Patents Does OpenAI Hold? A Deep Dive into Their IP Portfolio — OpenAI patent portfolio analysis
54. Our approach to patents — OpenAI's official patent policy statement
55. OpenAI moves to trademark its o1 'reasoning' models — OpenAI trademark strategy coverage
56. Lex Machina 2025 Patent Litigation Report Shows 22% Surge in Filings and Record $4.3B in Damages — Comprehensive 2025 patent litigation statistics
57. Navigating patent eligibility for AI inventions after the USPTO's AI guidance update — Legal analysis of USPTO July 2024 AI guidance
58. AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications — Federal Circuit Section 101 decision on AI patents
59. Artificial Intelligence — ArXiv AI research repository
60. Economies of Open Intelligence: Tracing Power & Participation in the Model Ecosystem — Academic analysis of Hugging Face model ecosystem
61. PANORAMA: Patent Examination Dataset — Academic dataset for patent prior art research
62. PaECTER: Patent-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformers — Patent-specific BERT model research
63. New AI NPE Campaign — Prior Art Found — Unified Patents analysis of AI NPE activity
64. Patent Dispute Report: 2025 in Review — Unified Patents 2025 NPE activity report