Treat AI prompts as an unadjudicated risk
No authority has decided whether an AI prompt is a public disclosure, so the risk depends on the tier of tool, the contract and the settings.
Lesson 5 of 8 · 5 min

What is and is not known
An unadjudicated risk is one that no court or patent office has ruled on. Whether typing an invention into an AI tool counts as a public disclosure is such a question (Saul Ewing). This lesson does not say that a prompt is a public disclosure, and it does not say that a prompt is safe. Either statement would go beyond the law. Treat it as a risk to manage.
Four tiers of tool
The tiers below are our judgment. They are analogy, not court holdings.
- Consumer tool with training on. Treat it as not confidential.
- Consumer tool with training off. This is better, but it depends on the terms and on how long data is kept.
- Enterprise or API tool with contractual confidentiality. This is comparable to a vendor under a nondisclosure agreement.
- Self-hosted tool. This has the lowest exposure.
These tiers describe categories, not brands. They apply to any AI tool, including tools built for patent work. We make no claim about any vendor's terms, and terms change, so read the current ones yourself.
Questions to ask about any tool
In our judgment, these questions matter most before you enter an unfiled invention:
- Does a contract bind the provider to confidentiality?
- Is your input used for training?
- How long is your input kept, and who can see it?
- Can a chat be shared by link, and can a shared link be found?
- Where is your data processed?
The last question matters at every tier. The USPTO has warned that AI tools "may utilize servers located outside the United States", raising export issues that a foreign filing license does not cover (89 FR 25609). A foreign filing license is the USPTO's permission to send invention details abroad for filing.
The practical rule
In our judgment, the two cleanest options are to file first, or to use a tool with contractual confidentiality after reading its terms. Filing first removes the question for the material in your application. If you have already used an AI tool and are worried about it, write down which tool, which settings and what you entered, then raise it with a patent attorney.
Timeless wisdom
The technology is new, but the legal tests are old. In the US, the question for a publication is public accessibility (MPEP § 2128). In Europe, it turns on express or tacit secrecy (EPO Guidelines G-IV 7.2.2). For trade secrets, it is reasonable measures (18 U.S.C. § 1839). Disclosure to a party with no duty of protection has long undercut secrecy, a point the Trinidad court drew from Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, according to one law firm's commentary (Foley Hoag).
What's current
As of November 6, 2026
One law firm wrote on September 23, 2026 that "there is not yet any caselaw deciding whether a prompt to a publicly available AI model constitutes a public disclosure" (Saul Ewing). The USPTO's April 2024 notice says "AI systems may retain the information that is entered by users", but it addresses practitioner confidentiality, not prior art (89 FR 25609).
Commentary reports that United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y., February 2026) held consumer chats unprotected by privilege, while a same-day Michigan decision reportedly differed on its facts (Orrick; Mondaq). Sharing can create exposure that prompting does not: in mid-2025, shared ChatGPT links appeared in Google before OpenAI removed the option (Fortune). We found no statement from the European, Japanese, Chinese or UK patent offices.
Key takeaways
- No authority has decided whether an AI prompt is a public disclosure.
- Risk depends on the tier of tool, the contract and the settings.
- Read the current terms of any tool, because terms change.
- Filing first, or using a contractually confidential tool, are the cleanest options.
Check your understanding
Sources
- Saul Ewing, could AI prompts become prior art (September 23, 2026)
- 89 FR 25609
- MPEP § 2128
- EPO Guidelines 2026, G-IV 7.2.2
- 18 U.S.C. § 1839
- Foley Hoag, litigating trade secret claims focused on generative AI
- Orrick on United States v. Heppner
- Mondaq on United States v. Heppner
- Fortune on shared ChatGPT links (August 2025)
The Academy is general education, not legal advice, and reading it doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Patent law and fees change, so check the linked sources and have a registered patent attorney or agent review your situation before you file. Obsidyan sells patent software, including AI drafting tools, so weigh what these lessons say about AI tools with that in mind.
