Artificial intelligence has been raising foundational questions for patent law long before generative tools entered the mainstream. In this episode of Clause 8, host Eli Mazour speaks with Wen Xie, U.S. Patent Attorney and Founder of Lux Lumen Intellectual Property, about how legal thinking around AI, inventorship, and patent eligibility has evolved—and where it appears to be heading.
The conversation traces early debates sparked by the DABUS cases, which framed AI inventorship as a question of whether a machine could be named as an inventor. While those cases clarified that U.S. patent law requires a human inventor, they also highlighted a more practical issue that remains unresolved: how to evaluate human contribution when AI tools play a role in the inventive process, including in areas such as industrial design.
The episode also examines the USPTO’s shifting approach to AI-related inventions, from post-Alice uncertainty to more recent Section 101 guidance and new USPTO Director’s John Squires Ex parte Desjardins PTAB decision. Wen discusses how applicants can position AI inventions as genuine technological improvements, avoid overreliance on “black box” disclosures, and manage Section 112 risks.
The discussion concludes with a forward-looking look at using AI tools for patent practice, the USPTO’s new pilot for AI-powered pre-examination search, and what these developments mean for practitioners and innovators navigating a rapidly changing IP landscape.
Watch the full episode or listen on your favorite podcast app—and subscribe to the new Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content.
Presented by Tradespace – where ideas take flight.
Chapters
00:01 – Wen Xie’s early interest in AI and patent law
02:10 – AI disruption before ChatGPT: imaging, medicine, and automation
04:56 – How AI reshaped Wen’s legal career
05:55 – DABUS, Thaler, and the AI inventorship debate
08:56 – Human contribution vs. AI output
10:40 – Should companies restrict inventors from using AI?
11:59 – What in-house counsel should ask about AI use
14:20 – Duty of candor, recordkeeping, and litigation risk
18:06 – Section 101 and AI as technological improvement
22:50 – USPTO guidance, PTAB trends, and examiner behavior
32:01 – Section 112 issues and describing machine learning
33:40 – Using generative AI in patent drafting
39:40 – Advice for junior attorneys in an AI-driven practice
