IP Protection Considers AI

Protecting the intellectual property (IP) created in the process of solving complex problems and refining designs is important. But many engineers overlook a critical aspect of their work. 

In Part I, Tony Laurentano, an IP attorney with the law firm Nelson Mullins, covered the most pressing challenge for most engineers, including knowing when they have something worth protecting. The following are more important considerations.

IP Protection Tools

Not all intellectual property protection is the same. Engineers tend to focus on patents, but protecting mechanical engineering work may involve other forms of IP as well. Here is a brief overview:

1.    Utility patents. These protect how something works: mechanisms, systems, methods, processes. This is the most common category for mechanical engineering innovations.

2.    Design patents. These protect how something looks rather than how it functions. Engineers often overlook the aesthetic elements of an innovation, but design patents can be valuable for devices with distinctive shapes, housings, or user-facing components.

3.    Trademarks. These protect brand identity, including names, logos, and taglines. This is occasionally relevant when engineers create proprietary systems or branded technologies.

4.    Copyright. Less commonly associated with mechanical engineering and often triggered automatically upon publishing written work, there may be cases where mechanical engineers or their company would want to pursue formal copyright applications to safeguard technical content.

5.    Trade secrets. These protect confidential knowledge that a company chooses not to patent to avoid revealing too much through a public application. This can include formulas, settings, or processes that are difficult to reverse-engineer. Laurentano cited well-known examples such as the Coca-Cola and KFC formulas.

Choosing the right protection strategy depends on the invention itself. Sometimes the best answer is a combination. For example, a mechanical product may be protected by a utility patent for its mechanism, a design patent for its industrial design, and a trade secret for the parameters of its manufacturing process.

Understanding these categories can help engineers recognize when they may be creating protectable IP.

Who Owns the Patent?

A question many engineers never ask, but should, is who actually owns the invention. In most cases, the company owns the patent rights if the work was done as part of an engineer’s employment. The company also typically owns the rights if the invention was developed using company resources, or within the scope of assigned duties.

However, the engineer who contributes intellectually is still named as an inventor, which is a legal designation that cannot be assigned or transferred. Laurentano emphasized that this distinction matters, “Inventorship is a matter of law. Ownership is a matter of contract. Engineers should understand both.”

Companies should be clear about expectations. Engineers should know how inventions are managed, when assignment agreements are required, and what rights they retain. Clear internal policies reduce conflicts, especially in environments where R&D is collaborative and iterative.

Why IP Matters to Engineers and Their Companies

Patents aren’t just a legal formality. They represent strategic value.

For companies, a strong patent portfolio can:
•    attract investors
•    block competitors
•    increase valuation during mergers or acquisitions
•    differentiate in crowded technical markets
•    support marketing claims about proprietary technology

For individual engineers, patents:
•    enhance professional credibility
•    strengthen résumés and promotion cases
•    demonstrate problem-solving capability
•    document contributions to a company’s innovation pipeline

In a field where competitive advantage is often measured in performance margins or manufacturing efficiency, protecting innovation can be just as important as creating it.

A Proactive Mindset: Engineers as Partners in IP

The most effective engineering organizations treat IP protection as part of the design cycle, not an afterthought. Laurentano advises companies to train engineers to recognize inventions early and route completed invention disclosure forms through a clear internal process.

“Patent attorneys can only protect what we know about,” he said. “So the first step is helping engineers recognize when they’ve developed something valuable and then working through the process to evaluate whether it can be protected.”

In some cases, even if an innovation is patentable, it may not be worth the effort. The cost to file a patent varies greatly depending on a variety of factors, but engineers should expect to spend thousands of dollars on each patent. Sometimes, there are multiple patents involved, which balloons the cost even more.

“Just because something can be patented doesn’t necessarily mean it should be,” Laurentano said. “Sometimes the cost, timing, or business value doesn’t justify it. You have to ask whether the patent will actually deliver enough value to the business to warrant the time and money.”

AI’s Impact on Engineering IP

The increasing use of artificial intelligence in engineering design is adding a new layer of complexity to intellectual property protection, particularly around inventorship. Guidance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, reaffirmed in a November 2025 release, makes clear that inventions developed with the assistance of AI remain patentable. But only human beings can be named as inventors. In other words, AI may inform or accelerate the design process, but a human must make a meaningful contribution to the inventive concept. 

Legal analysts who closely track AI-related IP developments have noted that documenting human judgment and decision-making is becoming increasingly important as AI tools become more sophisticated.

AI is also changing how novelty and obviousness are assessed. Generative design and optimization tools can rapidly explore thousands of potential solutions, increasing the likelihood that a proposed design overlaps with prior art. At the same time, AI-powered patent search tools are improving engineers’ ability to identify relevant patents, publications, and products earlier in the development process. Commentators across the IP legal community have observed that as these tools become more common, expectations around prior art awareness and due diligence may rise as well.

Finally, the growing role of AI underscores the need for clear internal policies around disclosure, documentation, and ownership. USPTO guidance and legal commentary alike emphasize the importance of maintaining records that show how AI tools were used and what inputs engineers provided. They also stressed documenting where human judgment shaped the final design. 

For companies, this documentation can become critical if questions later arise about inventorship, patent validity, or ownership. AI is becoming a routine part of mechanical engineering workflows. As that happens, it will be essential to treat IP strategy as part of broader digital transformation rather than a downstream legal exercise.

“It’s simple; companies should only consider the humans involved in the inventive process and then wait for the law in this area to develop over time,” Laurentano said.

Conclusion: Keep IP in Mind

Mechanical engineers create solutions that can reshape products, industries, and markets. But an innovation has little value if it isn’t protected. Engineers at all levels can help safeguard their work and contribute more meaningfully to their organizations by understanding the basics. That includes knowledge of patentability, the one-year disclosure rule, the distinct types of IP, inventorship, and the strategic importance of patents. 

With even a modest level of IP awareness, engineers can prevent costly oversights, capture more value from their ideas, and ensure that their innovations make the maximum amount of impact. 

This is part two of a two-part story. “Mechanical Engineers and Protecting IP, Part One,” was published last month and covers knowing when innovation is patent worthy and the one-year rule.

Jerry Guerra is an independent writer in Lynnfield, Mass.