Ottawa inventors experimenting with generative AI to help design their next product have a new set of ground rules to work by, according to a patent lawyer at one of the city's own firms.
Kushal Shah, a patent lawyer and registered patent agent at Perley-Robertson Hill McDougall LLP, has laid out guidance for anyone using tools like ChatGPT or other generative AI systems during the inventive process.
AI can't be named an inventor
The starting point is a legal one: patent systems around the world generally require that an inventor be a natural person, which means an AI system itself cannot be listed as an inventor on a patent application. That rule doesn't stop someone from using AI as a tool during the process, but it does mean the human using it needs to be able to show their own inventive contribution.
Keep a paper trail
Shah's advice centres on documentation. Inventors working with AI should be tracking the prompt iterations they developed, the technical assumptions they made along the way, which AI-generated outputs were accepted, modified, or rejected, and why certain approaches were ultimately discarded. That record becomes the evidence of the human inventive work behind the final result, something that matters if a patent application is ever challenged.
Where AI tools can mislead you
The guidance also flags real limitations in how generative AI performs during invention work. These systems can produce solutions that appear convincing but are technically flawed, impractical, or simply incorrect, meaning outputs need to be verified rather than taken at face value. The risk extends to research too: AI tools used for patentability or prior art searches may miss relevant public disclosures, generate inaccurate citations, or misinterpret technical subject matter, any of which could leave an inventor with a false sense of security about how original their idea really is.
Confidentiality is a separate risk
Beyond accuracy, there's a data question. Some AI platforms may retain user inputs, use them for system improvement or training purposes, or permit data access under certain circumstances. For an inventor typing out the details of an unpatented idea into a chat window, that raises confidentiality concerns worth thinking through before hitting enter.
What Canada does and doesn't require
For now, Canada does not have specific legislation governing AI inventorship, and there is no general requirement to disclose that AI tools were used in preparing or developing an invention described in a patent application. That leaves plenty of room for inventors to use these tools, but Shah's message is that using them well means documenting the human judgment behind every accepted or rejected AI output, not just the final product.
Sources: Ottawa Business Journal
