When Insilico Medicine used generative AI to propose a pulmonary fibrosis drug, it claimed the molecule was "discovered by" its AI platform. Yet the patent application named five humans, including CEO Alex Zhavoronkov, as inventors—highlighting a legal reality: US courts rule only humans can be inventors.

This precedent stems from Ryan Abbott's pro bono case naming AI DABUS as inventor of a food container. The DC appeals court held that "individual" in patent statutes means a human being. Sarah Korman, chief legal officer of Isomorphic Labs (an Alphabet spinout), confirms: "There needs to be a human inventor or there's no invention and no patent." The USPTO acknowledges AI may perform inventive acts but requires human contribution for patentability.

Abbott warns excluding AI-generated outputs from protection could dampen drug development. Under Biden, the USPTO issued guidance on human co-inventorship; under Trump, it reversed course, treating AI as a mere tool like a calculator. Insilico's Zhavoronkov notes human chemists still synthesize and test drugs, securing their inventor status—but as automation advances, the threshold for human inventorship becomes a pressing legal question.