PTAB Signals Favorable Trends for Owners
Recent administrative rulings and USPTO guidance suggest a shifting landscape for artificial intelligence patent applications heading into 2026. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has increasingly signaled a more favorable environment for patent owners, effectively reducing the traditional hurdles associated with Section 101 eligibility challenges. This trend indicates that examiners are adopting a broader interpretive approach, likely influenced by recent high-profile decisions that emphasize the practical utility of AI inventions over abstract theoretical concerns. Consequently, applicants can anticipate a more streamlined examination process that focuses on tangible technical improvements rather than dismissing claims as mere algorithms.
Also worth reading: How Will AI Patent Eligibility Guidance Evolve in 2026? · What Does AI Patent Eligibility Analysis Reveal About Section 101 Risk? · Machine Learning Patent Eligibility Checklist: What AI Inventors Need to Know?
Strategically, this evolution demands a recalibration of filing approaches for 2026. Companies must craft claims that distinctly tie AI functionalities to specific technological improvements, ensuring robust defense against eligibility rejections. The convergence of PTAB signals and USPTO directives suggests that early engagement with examiners and detailed technical disclosures will be paramount. By aligning application strategies with these emerging favorable trends, innovators can better navigate the complexities of intellectual property protection. This proactive stance not only mitigates risk but also positions entities to capitalize on the surging global demand for AI-related patents, securing stronger competitive advantages in an increasingly crowded technological landscape.
USPTO Broadens Eligibility Approach
The USPTO's shift toward a more permissive eligibility analysis, catalyzed by the Squires memo and the Desjardins decision, marks a meaningful turning point for AI-related filings heading into 2026. Examiners are now directed to take a holistic view of claimed inventions rather than reflexively rejecting them as abstract ideas, and PTAB signals suggest reduced Section 101 hurdles for AI inventions. This aligns with a broader global surge in AI patenting, where companies in the United States, China, and elsewhere are racing to secure dominant portfolios. For applicants, the practical implication is that AI claims previously deemed too abstract—particularly those tying algorithmic innovation to concrete technical improvements—deserve fresh consideration for filing or refiled prosecution.
Filing strategies for 2026 should emphasize claims that articulate specific technical applications, measurable performance gains, and integration with hardware or real-world systems, mirroring approaches flagged in recent law firm outlooks. Practitioners should also monitor evolving copyright boundaries following recent decisions on AI-generated works, as they shape complementary IP protection. Early filing remains advisable given backlog pressures and the possibility that eligibility guidance could shift again under future administrative changes.
Global AI Patent Surge Analysis
Recent USPTO signals, including the Squires memo and Desjardins decision, point toward a broader eligibility posture for AI inventions, while PTAB trends appear more favorable to patent owners and reduce Section 101 hurdles. For 2026 filings, applicants should stop treating eligibility as an afterthought. Draft claims around concrete technical improvements—specific model architectures, training pipelines, hardware interactions, data transformations, and measurable performance gains—rather than abstract algorithms or business results.
Prosecution strategy should pair these claim structures with a layered specification that explains technical problems, alternatives, and implementation details, supporting both Section 101 and obviousness defenses. Because global AI filings are surging, prioritize early filing and targeted continuation strategies for core models and deployed applications. Build a compact family around commercially important embodiments, use examiner interviews to frame technical benefits, and monitor PTAB and district court outcomes. The 2026 approach should be broader in claim scope but disciplined in technical disclosure, avoiding reliance on generic computer language while preserving flexibility for international prosecution.
Holland Knight 2026 Outlook
Recent USPTO guidance, particularly the Squires memo and the Desjardins decision, signals a notably more permissive posture toward AI invention eligibility, and applicants preparing 2026 filings should recalibrate accordingly. Examiners are being directed toward a broader view of what constitutes patentable subject matter under Section 101, reducing the frequency with which AI claims are dismissed as abstract ideas. PTAB trends reinforce this shift, with decisions increasingly favoring patent owners and lowering eligibility hurdles for AI-related claims. For filers, this means AI inventions tied to concrete technical improvements—enhanced model architectures, efficient training methods, or specific hardware implementations—can now be claimed with greater confidence in their core functionality rather than dressed up narrowly to survive threshold scrutiny.
Strategically, 2026 filings should still anchor claims in demonstrable technical solutions, but applicants can afford broader claim scope than in recent years. The global surge in AI patent filings, led heavily by Chinese applicants, raises competitive urgency: domestic portfolios that once seemed sufficient may need expansion. Companies should audit pending applications for claims previously abandoned or narrowed on eligibility grounds, since revived examination standards may justify reopening or appealing those rejections at the PTAB.
Navigating Section 101 Hurdles
Recent USPTO signals—including the broad eligibility approach following the Squires memo and Desjardins decision, plus PTAB trends favoring patent owners—suggest AI filings in 2026 should emphasize concrete technical improvements rather than abstract functionality. Applicants should frame inventions around specific architectures, training pipelines, data transformations, hardware interactions, and measurable performance gains, and build specifications that explain how those elements solve technical problems. Avoid claiming generic computer implementation alone.
For 2026 strategies, draft claims with layered fallbacks that tie AI outputs to real-world system behavior, sensor data, control actions, or resource efficiency. Use continuation and divisional families to adapt to evolving guidance, pursue both method and system claims, and document technical details early. Monitor PTAB decisions and examiner guidance, and align global filings with jurisdictions demanding technical-effect narratives. This approach reduces Section 101 risk while preserving enforcement breadth. Treat eligibility as a drafting discipline, not an afterthought.
Eligibility Trends Comparison
| Recent trend | Eligibility impact | 2026 filing strategy |
|---|---|---|
| USPTO’s broader post-Squires approach | AI claims face fewer reflexive Section 101 rejections, but examiners still demand technical specificity | Frame claims around concrete technical improvements, specific AI architectures, and measurable real-world functions |
| PTAB signals favoring patent owners and reduced Section 101 hurdles for AI | Stronger prospects on appeal, yet prosecution record remains decisive | Build a clear record with technical evidence, expert declarations, and multiple claim variants |
| Desjardins and evolving case law refine abstract-idea analysis | Eligibility turns on specific implementation rather than broad AI functionality | Draft specifications with hardware/process detail, data-flow descriptions, and technical benefit evidence |
| Global AI patent surge and crowded landscape | More filings increase scrutiny and prior-art pressure | File early, coordinate continuations/divisionals and foreign families, and preserve fallback claim positions |