Four Things Inventors Should Know About Using AI Chatbots

AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and Grok have become powerful tools for inventors. Used well, they can accelerate research, improve disclosures, and reduce early costs significantly.

But inventions are sensitive assets, and the patent process is fundamentally about managing risk and uncertainty, not eliminating them. To use AI effectively without creating avoidable IP problems, here are four things every inventor should understand.

Quick disclaimer: I've helped inventors navigate the patent process for over 25 years, but I'm not a patent attorney. Nothing in the patent process comes with guarantees. This article reflects practical, real-world experience, not legal advice. For formal legal opinions or filings, consult a patent attorney.

1. AI Will Encourage You Even When It Shouldn't

AI models are designed to be helpful and responsive to your framing. In practice, that often means they agree with you, mirror your tone, and reinforce optimism or pessimism, depending on how you ask.

That's useful for brainstorming, but risky if you're trying to evaluate an invention objectively.

How to counteract this bias:

• Ask the AI to act as a skeptical investor or patent examiner.
• Explicitly request reasons the idea might fail.
• Run two passes by default:
  • Pass 1: "Make the strongest case for pursuing this."
  • Pass 2: "Assume this fails — why?"

The insight comes from comparing the answers, not accepting either one at face value.

2. Public Disclosure vs. Confidentiality: Don't Confuse Them

These are related but distinct issues.

Patent law (disclosure risk)

As of late 2025, there is no reported case where someone clearly lost patent rights solely because they used ChatGPT, Claude, or similar tools privately. That said, AI is new and this area of law is still unsettled.

Using an AI chatbot has not yet been tested in court as a disclosure event. Attorneys warn about it because they must assume conservative interpretations.

Confidentiality and data use (third-party risk)

This is the more concrete concern.

Consumer-grade AI tools are third-party services. Their terms may allow logging, human review, and (unless you opt out) use of conversations to improve models. Out of the box, they do not automatically meet strict confidentiality standards.

A fair way to think about this:

• The risk is generally low if you use reasonable controls.
• It is not zero.
• It is governed by the provider's policies and your settings.

What is accurate:

• Your chat is not publicly visible.
• Other users cannot see your conversation.
• Models do not store your invention like a searchable database.

What also matters:

• Providers may retain logs.
• Some content may be reviewed by humans.
• Training or inspection depends on account type and settings.

Sensible precautions:

• Turn off chat history and training.
• Use paid tiers for serious invention work.
• Keep early questions high-level until you file.
• Treat consumer AI as a third-party service and read the data-use policy.

Bottom line: Use AI thoughtfully, the same way you would any outside tool or service before filing.

3. Never Treat the First Answer as the Final Word

Generative AI can hallucinate confidently. That includes:

• Patent numbers that don't exist.
• Fabricated case law.
• Misidentified competitors or products.

This isn't theoretical. Lawyers have already been sanctioned for submitting AI-generated citations without verification.

A better workflow:

1. Use AI to generate search terms, classifications, and angles.
2. Verify results yourself in Google Patents, Espacenet, or the USPTO database.
3. Use AI again to help analyze documents you've actually reviewed.

AI is a drafting and analysis aid, not a source of record.

4. Different Bots Excel at Different Tasks

AI capabilities change quickly, but thinking in terms of a toolbox is still useful:

Re-evaluate tools periodically as models evolve.

Important: AI should never be your sole basis for freedom-to-operate opinions or final patent strategy. Those decisions must withstand scrutiny and require human judgment.

One Issue That Deserves Special Attention: Inventorship

Only humans can be inventors. Courts in the US, UK, and Europe have all rejected AI systems as inventors. The real risk isn't using AI — it's who conceived the invention.

Generally safe use: "Here's my invention. Help me describe it clearly, critique it, and explore variations."

Risky use: "Invent a new product for me," then filing on what the AI generates.

Recent USPTO guidance focuses on whether a natural person made a significant contribution to conception, even if AI tools were used. Keep the core inventive concept human, and use AI to refine and stress-test it.

The Bottom Line

Patents are about managing risk, not eliminating it.

AI chatbots can be powerful allies for inventors when used with judgment. They can help you think more broadly, draft more clearly, and move faster. But they are not neutral evaluators, not confidential advisors by default, and not inventors.

Use AI to:

• Challenge your assumptions.
• Organize and articulate your ideas.
• Accelerate research and communication.

Verify important facts, manage confidentiality consciously, maintain clear inventorship boundaries, and involve human professionals when decisions need to be defensible.

The future of inventing includes AI. The inventors who understand both its strengths and its limits will benefit the most.

Invention City provides human guidance to inventors at every stage of the process. Learn more about us at https://www.inventioncity.com/company.

— Mike Marks
President, Invention City