AI Patent Eligibility Has Shifted With One Machine-Learning Case
AI Patent Eligibility Has Shifted With One Machine-Learning Case
Publish Date: 2026-02-06 04:30:00
Source Domain: news.bloomberglaw.com
Over the past few months, the US Patent and Trademark Office has treated artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions more favorably under Section 101 of the US Patent Act than they have been in years.
That shift didn’t happen overnight, but it crystallized through a series of developments centered on the case of Ex parte Desjardins, culminating in new guidance that is reshaping how examiners and applicants alike think about eligibility for AI-related claims.
A Turning Point
The PTO made waves in September 2025 when the Appeals Review Panel, under Director John Squires, vacated a Section 101 rejection in Desjardins. A machine-learning-related application had been rejected on the grounds that its claims were merely abstract.
But Squires agreed with inventor Guillaume Desjardins that the technology would improve “how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation.”
Appeals Review Panel members agreed, saying the claims recited meaningful technical improvements to how machine-learning models operate, including reducing system complexity, improving multi-task learning, and preventing “catastrophic forgetting.” The panel further explained that such improvements could satisfy the “practical application” requirement under the Alice test for patent eligibility and under Section 101.
From the outset, the message was clear: AI innovations shouldn’t be reflexively categorized as abstract ideas. The panel cautioned that categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection risks undermining US leadership in critical emerging technologies.
Elevating Desjardins
The PTO took the additional step of designating Ex parte Desjardins as a precedential decision in November 2025. This was more than symbolic—it meant Desjardins was now the binding authority across the PTO and would formally guide both examination and appeal decisions.
It also emphasized a point that practitioners had been arguing…
