A Comparison of Requirements in Brazil, The United States and Europe For Patents For AI Inventions

MARK TERRY, ESQ.

Artificial-intelligence inventions can be patentable, but the path to protection varies by jurisdiction. Applicants pursuing international coverage should account for the different ways Brazil, the United States, and Europe evaluate software- and AI-related claims.

In Brazil, AI inventions are analyzed under the country’s broader industrial-property framework. Applications generally need to present AI as part of a technical solution rather than as an abstract mathematical method. Brazil’s participation in Patent Prosecution Highway programs may also provide opportunities for accelerated examination in appropriate cases.

In the United States, AI claims are evaluated under the familiar subject-matter eligibility framework. Claims that appear directed to abstract ideas must include additional elements showing a practical technological application or improvement. Drafting should therefore explain the specific technical problem and how the claimed system solves it.

The European Patent Office similarly emphasizes technical character and technical effect. AI used for image processing, control systems, medical technologies, or other technical applications may be easier to position than AI directed only to administrative, financial, or cognitive tasks.

No single jurisdiction is automatically best for every AI invention. The optimal filing strategy depends on the technology, commercial markets, development timeline, available budget, and the applicant’s ability to describe a concrete technical contribution.

Coordinated international drafting can reduce inconsistency and preserve flexibility. Claims and specifications should be prepared with the requirements of each intended jurisdiction in mind rather than assuming that one formulation will perform equally well everywhere.