What does it take to patent an invention on artificial intelligence or machine learning? According to a recent federal appeals court decision, it takes more than just applying a known technique to new data. Rather, the patent must claim some meaningful improvement to how the machine learning models function. As such, going forward, patent claims should recite specific technical improvements.
In the case at issue, the patents claimed the use of machine learning to optimize live event schedules and network maps, which determine the programs or content displayed by a television broadcaster’s channels within certain geographic markets at particular times. More specifically, the patents claimed methods for (1) training a machine learning model to generate and iteratively update optimized live event schedules based on changing data inputs and (2) creating and updating a network map based on real-time changes to broadcasting schedules and applying the updated network map to determine optimal program broadcasts.
In its analysis, the appeals court emphasized that iterative training and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning and are not sufficient on their own to make an invention patentable. Further, claims that merely recite training a generic machine learning model without disclosing specific improvements to the model itself do not meet the criteria for patent eligibility. The court’s decision underscores the need for carefully crafting machine learning or AI inventions to demonstrate concrete technological advancements.
In other words, the ruling stands for the proposition that it is not enough to explain what a machine learning or AI invention does. Rather, a patent must describe and claim how a machine learning or AI invention is better, faster, or more efficient than existing methods.
Do you have pending patent applications or a new invention involving artificial intelligence and don’t know what to do? We can help you review your options. To maximize the protection of your machine learning or AI inventions, please contact the authors or any member of the Intellectual Property Group at McCarter & English. The case is Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)