Will generative AI lead to a significant increase in frivolous patent lawsuits by 2028, overwhelming intellectual property courts?

The ease of using generative AI to produce novel designs and technical solutions will lead to a massive increase in the quantity of patent applications. Many of these will be of low quality or questionable inventiveness, overwhelming patent examiners and leading to the issuance of weak patents that are subsequently used in frivolous litigation.

Non-Practicing Entities, or "patent trolls," will leverage the uncertainty around AI inventorship to acquire and assert a new wave of ambiguous patents against a wide range of companies. Their business model thrives on making infringement claims where the cost of settling is less than the cost of litigating, even if the case is frivolous.

The current ambiguity in intellectual property law regarding AI-generated inventions will lead to a substantial rise (20% or more) in patent litigation by 2028, with many cases being frivolous due to unclear ownership and inventorship, overwhelming IP courts.

The crisis will not manifest as a flood of lawsuits overwhelming courts, but as a crisis of patent quality as overwhelmed patent examiners grant weak or invalid patents. Examiners lack the AI-specific tools and training to properly vet applications claiming AI assistance, leading to a "garbage in, garbage out" situation that results in a devalued patent system and targeted litigation later.

The *threat* of a flood of frivolous lawsuits, rather than the flood itself, will be the primary catalyst for change. Major technology companies will proactively lobby for new legislation to clarify AI's role in inventorship. This could lead to a new class of 'AI-assisted' patents or amendments to the Patent Act, heading off the crisis but creating new, complex legal categories.

Patent litigation is exceptionally expensive and time-consuming. The high costs, combined with the extreme uncertainty of winning a novel case involving AI inventorship, will act as a powerful economic deterrent. Potential plaintiffs, including NPEs, will conclude the risk-reward calculation is unfavorable for now.

The legal system, particularly in the US, will move faster than expected to quash the potential for frivolous AI lawsuits. Courts and patent offices will establish a strong, clear line that AI cannot be an "inventor," and that AI-generated inventions lacking significant human contribution are not patentable, effectively shutting down the basis for a flood of litigation.

Legislatures and courts will develop and implement clear guidelines, case law, or new legislation by 2028 that effectively addresses AI inventorship and ownership, thereby preventing a significant increase in frivolous patent lawsuits and court backlogs.

Instead of overwhelming courts, the industry will increasingly adopt private agreements, licensing frameworks, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to manage AI-generated intellectual property rights, thereby sidestepping formal litigation for many disputes.

The idea that the judicial system would rapidly produce a single, clear, and universally applicable test for AI inventorship, similar to the 'Alice' test for software patents, thereby resolving ambiguity swiftly.

This hypothesis suggested that major global economies would quickly come together to sign a binding treaty, creating a harmonized legal framework for handling AI-generated patents and preventing international legal chaos.