John Patrick M. Santos | Bianca Marie J. Angela M. Rañola | Angeline Chrisette C. Olegario
In July 2025, the Philippine Intellectual Property Office (“IPOPHL”) released its Examination Guidelines of Inventions, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Applications Relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI) (the “AI Examination Guidelines”).
The AI Examination Guidelines recognize that, although the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (“IP Code”) considers computer programs as non-patentable inventions, many modern inventions now involve and depend on computer systems and smart algorithms, including AI, to provide technical solutions. In addition, the IPOPHL acknowledges that AI has been deeply embedded in patent filings in the past ten years.
The AI Examination Guidelines, which likewise apply to industrial design applications, serve to complement the existing Manual for Patent Examination Procedure and the Information Communications Technology and Computer-Implemented Inventions Examination Guidelines. This issuance is a laudable and significant development, as the AI Examination Guidelines capacitate both applicants and patent examiners to navigate increasingly pervasive AI-related or AI-assisted inventions.
Types of AI-Related Inventions
At the outset, the AI Examination Guidelines make a distinction between the two types of AI-related inventions. Core AI Technologies or AI Algorithm-Level Inventions (“Core AI”) are those which contribute to the advancement or improvement of AI technology itself, and where the inventive concept lies in the creation or enhancement of the AI model, learning algorithm, or training methodology. On the other hand, Applied AI Technologies or AI Utilization/Domain-Specific AI Applications (“Applied AI”) are those which apply existing AI methods to solve technical problems in specific domains, and where inventive concept lies in how the AI is applied and integrated to produce a technical effect in a particular field. This distinction is important when determining whether the enablement requirement has been satisfied.
AI as an Inventor/Maker/Designer and/or Applicant
The AI Examination Guidelines explicitly provide that because an applicant and/or its inventor/maker/designer must have the personality to institute intellectual property rights, AI cannot be an applicant or inventor/maker/designer under the IP Code as it lacks civil personality and juridical capacity. It has been recognized that AI is used as a tool to aid inventors, makers, or designers subject to ethical considerations. Even so, it is the individual who used AI by inputting prompts for the AI to generate the design or invention who is considered the applicant and/or inventor. By that similar logic, AI likewise cannot be named co-inventor or joint-inventors.
AI-assisted inventions or AI-generated designs are not prohibited. However, patent examiners are advised to exercise diligence in the substantive examination of the same, particularly in evaluating the cited sources of AI to maintain the integrity of the examination process and the quality of allowed applications.
Patentability of AI-Related Inventions
To navigate the exclusion of computer programs and mathematical methods from patentable subject matter under the IP Code, the AI Examination Guidelines state that for an AI-related invention to be patentable, it must demonstrate a “technical contribution” or “technical effect” to the known art. Further, examiners are directed to use the following Five-Step Claim Analysis to determine eligibility of the subject matter, i.e., whether the invention for which protection is being sought has a technical character:
- Does the claim involve a computer-implemented invention and involve AI?
- Is the claim directed to matter which is against public order or morality?
- Is the claim directed to a statutory class of invention, i.e., product or process within the meaning of the IP Code?
- Does the claim involve non-technical matters?
- Does the claim constitute technical character after weighing all the factors?
The answers to the foregoing questions will determine whether or not the AI-related invention is patentable.
Sufficient Disclosure and Enablement
As stated in the IP Code’s Implementing Rules and Regulations, the patent application must disclose the invention in a manner that is sufficiently clear and complete for a person skilled in the art to carry it out. The general rule for disclosure is that it must be comprehensive enough to enable a person skilled in the art to put the invention into practice merely by following the directions provided in the patent specification.
For AI inventions, the description must disclose the essential technical features of the invention, such as any training method, data processing method, or algorithm used in implementing the AI invention, and how these features interact or function together to arrive at the desired technical effect.
Clarity
Finally, the AI Examination Guidelines require that AI-related claims must be technically precise, definite in scope, functionally defined, consistent with description, and free from ambiguity. Relative, imprecise, and ambiguous AI preambles should be avoided. Moreover, examiners must ensure that the claims correspond to the description and that each technical term is defined in the specification or widely understood by skilled persons, among others.
In summary, the AI Examination Guidelines are a welcome advancement in the Philippine patent landscape. The provision of clear rules is sure to incentivize more applicants and inventors to pursue patent protection in the Philippines and to give patent examiners the proper tools to evolve together with the innovations they evaluate.
For any questions on the subject, please contact:
Rowanie A. Nakan
Senior Partner
ra.nakan@cruzmarcelo.com