Aipedia: Patent and trade mark attorneys

IPReg AI guidance explained

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-27

IPReg's AI guidance, confirmed as final on 20 July 2026, adds no new rules: it helps attorneys find the existing duties that apply when they use AI. Firms still need to show how they meet those duties, including in PI proposal answers.

Part of: AI in patent and trade mark attorneys

In short

IPReg issued interim AI guidance earlier in 2026, tested it for more than six months and confirmed it as final on 20 July 2026 after it was well received. The guidance is principles-based, technology-agnostic, outcome-focused and deliberately not prescriptive. It maps AI use onto existing regulatory arrangements rather than creating new duties. IPReg guidance is generally not binding, but departures should be justifiable and ideally documented. CITMA and CIPA add practical material on procurement and confidentiality. IPReg says further guidance for consumers, firms and clients is in the pipeline.

What IPReg has published

IPReg is the regulator for registered patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys and their firms. Its AI material sits on its Artificial Intelligence guidance page under Practice development. It has two documents:

The AI guidance itself, published as a policy statement PDF dated July 2026. It was issued as interim guidance earlier in 2026 and then confirmed as final on 20 July 2026. IPReg says the interim version was tested for more than six months and was well received by the professions.
A statement on IPReg's own use of AI, in which IPReg says it holds itself to the same standards it expects of the regulated professions.

IPReg describes the guidance as helping regulated persons "identify those elements of IPReg's regulatory arrangements that may be relevant" when considering using AI in their work. It says the area is fast evolving and that the guidance will be kept under review. CITMA reported on 28 July 2026 that guidance for consumers, firms and clients is in the pipeline.

Why it relies on existing duties

The guidance is principles-based, technology-agnostic, outcome-focused and pro-innovation. The approach works because the outcomes IPReg already requires apply regardless of the tool: competent work, proper supervision, protecting client confidentiality, giving clients clear information, keeping records and managing risk. A rule written for one type of AI tool would date quickly.

The binding duties are in the Core Regulatory Framework, made up of the Overarching Principles and the Code of Conduct, in force since 2023 and amended in 2026 on complaints. Code paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 cover risk management and holding PII. The AI guidance maps onto the existing requirements on competence, supervision, confidentiality, client information and records. Check the current Code of Conduct for the paragraph that applies to each area before relying on it.

What the guidance does not say

It does not ban any type of AI tool or publish a list of approved tools.
It does not create a separate AI rule that can be breached on its own. A breach would be of an existing duty.
As published, it does not set out what PII should cover for AI use. No IPReg, CIPA or CITMA statement on AI and PII was found.
It is not a safe harbour. Following the guidance helps show reasonable practice, but it does not decide whether work was negligent in a civil claim.

How the bodies' material fits together

Body	Document	Date	Status
IPReg	AI guidance (interim, then final)	Final 20 July 2026	Guidance; departures should be justifiable
IPReg	Core Regulatory Framework	2023, amended 2026	Binding
CITMA	AI procurement guidance, Parts A to C	17 Feb, 26 Feb, 5 Mar 2026	Professional body guidance
CITMA	Report on AI's impact on IP practice	17 July 2025	Commentary
CIPA	AI guidance for SMEs and creators	4 December 2025	Guidance for clients

CITMA's procurement series covers trust and partnership with vendors (Part A), critical risk assessment (Part B), and liability and compliance (Part C). CIPA's client guidance warns that entering invention details into a tool that is not fully secure may amount to public disclosure. No CIPA AI guidance aimed at members was found. IPReg's guidance page explains its general status.

What firms should document

Because the guidance relies on outcomes, firms need evidence that they achieve them. A proportionate record would include:

An AI use policy saying which tools may be used for which tasks, and which may never receive unfiled invention details or privileged material.
A tool register with the vendor terms on confidentiality, data retention and training on your data.
Risk assessments for each tool, following the approach in CITMA's Part B.
Review and sign-off rules: who checks AI output, and how that is recorded on the file.
Supervision and training records for attorneys, trainees, paralegals and records staff.
How clients are told about AI use and the limits of AI-assisted searches or opinions.
An incident log for AI errors and near misses, and how each was handled.

What it means for PI

PII remains compulsory for attorneys serving the public and must meet IPReg's Minimum Terms and Conditions. The guidance does not change what that cover must include. Insurers may ask about AI use on proposal forms. The documents above are what you will draw on to answer accurately, and an accurate answer matters because of the duty of fair presentation. See what to document about AI use for PI, does attorneys' PI cover AI mistakes and IPReg PI requirements.

For specific tasks, see confidential invention disclosures and AI docketing and deadlines, or return to the patent and trade mark attorneys hub.

How Apex helps: Apex arranges PI for patent and trade mark attorneys. A broker can help you turn your AI policy and controls into clear proposal answers and check how your wording treats AI-assisted work.

Sources

Frequently asked

When did IPReg's AI guidance become final?

IPReg confirmed the final status of its AI guidance on 20 July 2026. It had been issued as interim guidance earlier in 2026 and was tested for more than six months before being confirmed.

Does IPReg's AI guidance create new rules?

No. IPReg says the guidance is based on existing requirements rather than new ones. It is principles-based and technology-agnostic, and helps attorneys identify which parts of the existing regulatory arrangements are relevant to their AI use.

Do I have to follow IPReg's AI guidance?

IPReg guidance is generally not binding. IPReg says departures should be justifiable and ideally documented. The Code of Conduct duties the guidance points to, such as those on risk management and PII, are binding.

Does the guidance say anything about PII?

No IPReg statement linking AI use and PII was found. PII must still meet IPReg's Minimum Terms and Conditions, and attorneys should answer AI questions on proposal forms accurately to meet the duty of fair presentation.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.