Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Patents

Patents on AI-derived drugs: empirical evidence and legal challenges

Nature Biotechnology volume 44, pages 362–364 (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Publicly available evidence regarding the impact of artificial intelligence on drug discovery is beginning to emerge, as patents on AI-derived drugs show evidence of scientific progress while revealing new legal challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Analyzing scientific distinctiveness from patents filed by AI-native firms (treatment) compared with matched, non-AI-derived patents (control) along three dimensions: target distinctiveness, structural distinctiveness and combined target–structure distinctiveness.

References

  1. Zhang, K. et al. Nat. Med. 31, 45–59 (2025).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jayatunga, M. et al. Drug Discov. Today 29, 104009 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lou, B. & Wu, L. MIS Q 45, 1451–1482 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Osipenko, L. et al. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 115, 342–348 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krieger, J., Li, D. & Papanikolaou, D. Rev. Financ. Stud. 35, 636–679 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dharmasivam, M., Kaya, B., Akinware, A., Azad, M. G. & Richardson, D. R. Pharmacol. Rev. 78, 100102 (2026).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freilich, J. & Rai, A. K. Science 388, 924–926 (2025).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rai, A. K. UC Davis Law Rev. 59, 97–145 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Knox, C. et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 52, D1265–D1275 (2024). (D1).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. In re: Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).

  11. 35 U.S.C. 103.

  12. Abbott, R. UCLA Law Rev. 66, 2–52 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (2022).

  14. USPTO. Revised inventorship for AI-assigned inventions, 90 Fed. Reg. 54636 (26 November 2025).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank L. Brown, A. Kadaifciu, M. Zhang and N. Jameshenry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston University School of Law, Boston, MA, USA

    Janet Freilich

  2. Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC, USA

    Arti K. Rai

Authors
  1. Janet Freilich
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arti K. Rai
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arti K. Rai.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, and Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freilich, J., Rai, A.K. Patents on AI-derived drugs: empirical evidence and legal challenges. Nat Biotechnol 44, 362–364 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03039-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-026-03039-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing