Aipedia: Patent and trade mark attorneys

AI in patent and trade mark work: rules and PI

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

UK patent and trade mark attorneys can use AI for searching, drafting, translation and docketing, but IPReg expects them to do so within their existing professional duties. Their work turns on novelty, deadlines and claim wording, so AI errors can destroy rights that are hard or impossible to recover.

Part of: AI in patent and trade mark attorneys

In short

IPReg confirmed its AI guidance as final on 20 July 2026. It creates no new rules: it points attorneys to existing duties in its Core Regulatory Framework. CIPA warns clients that putting invention details into a non-secure AI tool may count as public disclosure, and CITMA has published AI procurement guidance and a report stressing human review. The Supreme Court has held that an AI cannot be an inventor (Thaler, 2023) and has changed the test for patenting neural network inventions (Emotional Perception, 2026). Attorneys serving the public must hold PII meeting IPReg's Minimum Terms and Conditions, which usually responds to negligence whatever tool was used.

How patent and trade mark attorneys use AI

AI tools are available across IP practice. Attorneys may use semantic search to find prior art and earlier marks, generative AI to draft claims, descriptions and responses to examination reports, machine translation for foreign filings and validations, and automated docketing to track renewal and procedural deadlines. Trade mark teams may use AI watch services and online brand monitoring, and portfolio managers may use AI scoring to decide which rights to keep, sell or drop.

CITMA's report on AI's impact on IP practice (17 July 2025) describes AI automating routine tasks such as searching, and says output must always get human review. It flags hallucination risk in drafting and research, the dependence of portfolio analysis on data quality, and new AI-enabled IP crime such as "starjacking" and AI-assisted counterfeits.

What makes IP work different from most professions is how unforgiving the consequences are. A disclosure before filing can destroy novelty. A missed deadline can lose a right. A single word in a claim can decide whether a competitor infringes. AI speeds up each of these tasks, but it also makes each failure mode quicker to reach.

The rules and guidance

The Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPReg) regulates registered patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys and their firms, under the oversight of the Legal Services Board. Its AI guidance began as interim guidance, was tested for more than six months and was confirmed as final on 20 July 2026. It is principles-based, technology-agnostic and deliberately not prescriptive. Rather than adding rules, it helps regulated persons identify the parts of IPReg's existing regulatory arrangements that may be relevant when using AI. IPReg says further material for consumers, firms and clients is in the pipeline.

IPReg guidance is generally not binding, but departures should be justifiable and ideally documented. The binding duties sit in the Core Regulatory Framework (Overarching Principles and Code of Conduct), including Code paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 on risk management and holding PII.

The professional bodies add practical material. CITMA published a three-part AI procurement guidance series in February and March 2026 covering trust, risk assessment, and liability and compliance. CIPA published AI guidance for SMEs and creators (4 December 2025), aimed at clients, warning that non-secure AI tools can amount to public disclosure and that AI-generated text may contain hidden disclosures. See IPReg AI guidance explained.

Two Supreme Court decisions every attorney needs

In Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49 the Supreme Court held that an inventor under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person, so an AI system cannot be named as inventor, and owning the machine gave no right to the patent.

In Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General [2026] UKSC 3 (11 February 2026) the court departed from the Aerotel four-step test and adopted the EPO's G1/19 "any hardware" approach. An artificial neural network is a program for a computer, but claims involving hardware are not excluded "as such". Advice given on the old test may now be out of date.

The main risks

Confidentiality and novelty: unfiled invention details entered into an insecure tool may become part of the state of the art, and privileged material may lose protection.
Hallucination: invented case law or guideline passages in responses, skeletons or opinions.
Incomplete searching: AI search coverage is invisible to the client unless the attorney explains it.
Deadlines: automated docketing that misreads a date or a status can lapse a right.
Drafting and translation: errors in scope that only surface in opposition, litigation or a foreign court years later.

Practical controls for attorney firms

Write a short AI policy listing approved tools and the tasks each may be used for.
Ban unfiled invention details and privileged material from consumer AI tools.
Require a named attorney to check every AI-assisted search report, draft, response and opinion before it leaves the firm.
Verify every authority, guideline passage and date against the primary source.
Double-check AI-calculated deadlines against the official record, especially after any data migration.
Tell clients what AI-assisted searches and opinions cover and what they do not.
Review vendor terms on confidentiality, retention and liability, using CITMA's procurement series as a checklist.
Log AI errors and near misses, and consider whether any is a notifiable circumstance under your PI policy.

The PI position

Attorneys providing services to the public must hold PII appropriate to their practice that meets IPReg's Minimum Terms and Conditions. The 2021-22 terms added express affirmative cover for claims arising from a Cyber Act or Cyber Incident (cl.1.1.7), with related exclusions at cl.6.5 and 6.6. IPReg lists participating insurers and runs a PII sandbox for testing cover from others. No IPReg, CIPA or CITMA statement on AI and PII was found, so AI-caused negligence is usually treated like any other negligence, subject to the policy terms. Top-up layers and other wordings can differ. See IPReg PI requirements, attorney PI cover explained and affirmative versus silent AI cover.

Apex arranges PI for patent and trade mark attorneys, and a broker can review how your policy treats AI-assisted work. See PI for trade mark attorneys and does PI cover AI mistakes.

Aipedia guides for patent and trade mark attorneys

IPReg AI guidance explained: what the final July 2026 guidance says, what it leaves out and what to document.
AI prior art searching: semantic search limits and claims over missed prior art.
AI patent drafting and specifications: added matter, sufficiency and hidden disclosures.
AI responses to examination reports: needless narrowing, invented authorities and response deadlines.
AI translation of patents and claims: translation errors that change claim scope.
AI freedom-to-operate opinions: launch decisions, scope caveats and large losses.
AI trade mark clearance searches: similarity scores and rebranding claims.
AI trade mark watching and enforcement: missed oppositions and false positives.
AI docketing, renewals and deadlines: lapsed rights and supervising records staff.
AI IP portfolio analytics and valuation: pruning advice and data quality.
AI and citations at UKIPO and IPEC hearings: the verification duty from Ayinde.
Advising on AI-generated inventions: inventorship and entitlement after Thaler.
Patenting AI after Emotional Perception: the new test and outdated advice.
AI and confidential invention disclosures: novelty, privilege and safe tools.
Does attorneys' PI cover AI mistakes?: minimum terms, silent AI and renewal disclosure.

Sources

Frequently asked

Can patent and trade mark attorneys use AI?

Yes. IPReg's final AI guidance (20 July 2026) is pro-innovation and creates no new rules. Attorneys must apply their existing duties under the Core Regulatory Framework, which means checking output, protecting confidential information, supervising staff and giving clients clear information.

Is IPReg's AI guidance binding?

IPReg guidance is generally not binding. However, IPReg says departures from guidance should be justifiable and ideally documented, and the underlying Code of Conduct duties that the guidance points to are binding.

Can an AI be named as an inventor in the UK?

No. In Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49 the Supreme Court held that an inventor under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. An AI system cannot be named, and owning the machine does not give a right to the patent.

Does attorneys' PI cover mistakes made using AI?

Usually, subject to the policy terms. IPReg requires PII meeting its Minimum Terms and Conditions for attorneys serving the public, and no AI-specific statement from IPReg, CIPA or CITMA changes that. Wordings vary, especially in top-up layers, so check how yours treats AI-assisted work.

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.