Can You Patent an Algorithm in 2025? Essential Facts You Need to Know

Can You Patent An Algorithm? For tech innovators, securing a utility patent for a software or AI-driven invention that incorporates an algorithm can be key to staying competitive. This article explores patent law complexities, strategies for protecting intellectual property, and how to navigate the challenges of patenting algorithm-based technologies.

Can You Patent An Algorithm? Understanding Utility Patents for Software

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “algorithm patent.” Algorithms by themselves are considered abstract ideas under U.S. patent law and are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, inventions that incorporate algorithms can be eligible for utility patents if they meet certain legal requirements. A software or AI-based invention that applies an algorithm in a way that improves computer functionality, solves a specific technical problem, or provides a tangible real-world benefit may qualify for patent protection. The key is demonstrating that the invention is more than a mere abstract concept and instead provides a novel and”inventive concept.”

Patent Eligibility Criteria for Software and AI-Based Inventions

To determine whether an invention that incorporates an algorithm qualifies for a utility patent, it must meet the statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which defines patentable subject matter as:

• Processes
• Machines
• Manufactures
• Compositions of matter

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has established judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, meaning that even if an invention falls into one of these categories, it may still be considered abstract if it is classified as one of the following:

• Abstract ideas
• Laws of nature
• Natural phenomena

Since algorithms often involve mathematical operations and abstract principles, they frequently fall into the abstract idea category. However, an algorithm may still be part of a patentable invention if it is integrated into a specific technological application that improves computer functionality, enhances a technological process, or provides a specific way of implementing the software beyond general computerization.

The Alice/Mayo Test for Patent Eligibility

The Alice/Mayo test, established by the Supreme Court, is used to determine whether an invention qualifies for a utility patent. This two-step analysis includes:

1. Determining whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept (such as an abstract idea or a mathematical formula).
2. Assessing whether the claim contains an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into something patent-eligible. An inventive concept must provide a significant technological improvement beyond simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer.

Successful utility patent applications for software inventions that incorporate algorithms often demonstrate a technical improvement, such as increasing computing efficiency, improving cybersecurity, enhancing machine operation, or solving a specific technical problem in an unconventional way that provides demonstrable real-world benefits.

Can You Patent Artificial Intelligence??

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven inventions, particularly those that interact with real-world data, may qualify for utility patents if they provide a technical improvement. Some examples include:

• AI-driven autonomous vehicle software that enhances driving safety through real-time environmental analysis.
• Speech recognition technology that improves human-computer interaction by enhancing accuracy and adaptability.
• AI-driven cybersecurity solutions that detect and prevent cyber threats using predictive analytics.

However, not all AI-related inventions are eligible for patents. Algorithms that merely manipulate data, generate insights, or produce outputs without improving computer functionality may be rejected as abstract ideas. When considering whether an AI-based invention is patentable, it is essential to frame the invention in a way that demonstrates a concrete technological improvement and real-world benefit beyond mere automation of human tasks.

Can You Patent a Mathematical Formula??

Mathematical formulas alone are generally not considered patentable subject matter, as they fall under the category of laws of nature or abstract ideas. However, if a mathematical formula is applied in a novel way that produces a specific, tangible improvement in technology, it may transform into patentable subject matter. Examples of potentially patentable applications include:

• A signal-processing algorithm that enhances wireless communication efficiency by reducing interference.
• A machine learning model that optimizes resource allocation in data centers to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.
• A novel method of encrypting data that improves cybersecurity functionality.

To be patentable, the mathematical formula must be part of an overall system that provides a demonstrable improvement over existing technology rather than just a generic computational process.

Algorithm Patent Examples – When Algorithms Contribute to Patentable Inventions

Despite the complications in trying to patent algorithms, many companies have been able to find success in growing their IP portfolios based on their proprietary algorithms. Understanding the specific patent laws in different jurisdictions is crucial for successfully patenting software and AI-driven inventions.

Patents in areas such as speech recognition, image processing, physiological profile creation, drones that interpret expressions and gestures, and algorithm-driven advertising enhancements have played a key role in shaping the modern digital marketplace. Both small startups and major corporations have leveraged patents to protect and monetize their proprietary software.

The major players in this sector are Google, Samsung, and Amazon. Below are examples of issued utility patents that demonstrate how companies have successfully patented software and AI-driven innovations by ensuring their claims emphasize real-world technological applications rather than abstract ideas.

Despite challenges in obtaining utility patents for software, many companies have successfully patented inventions that incorporate algorithms. Some notable examples include:

• Samsung’s latest patent is a drone with a flying display that can detect a person’s face, pupils, and hand gestures. The patent describes the camera as a mechanism that transmits information to the main control unit, allowing it to process user inputs and adjust drone behavior accordingly. Some speculate that the primary purpose of this patent may be related to the advertising industry, potentially enabling customized display ads for users as they walk through urban environments. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10025022B2/en) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10025022B2/en)
• Amazon’s smart speaker patent focuses on continuously listening for user interactions beyond traditional wake words. According to the patent, the smart speaker registers emotionally significant phrases, such as ‘I love Italian food,’ and uses that data to personalize advertisements and content recommendations. This technology may also register dislikes, allowing advertisers to refine targeting and avoid undesired promotions. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10115153B1/en) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US10115153B1/en)
• Google’s search algorithm patent represents a significant evolution in search engine technology. Initially, search engines relied on keyword-matching techniques, but Google’s approach incorporates machine learning to interpret natural language queries, rank search results, and display concise, direct answers. This technology has become instrumental in modern voice search and AI-driven digital assistants. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9471660B1/en) (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9471660B1/en)

These examples illustrate how companies have successfully obtained utility patents for software and AI-driven innovations by ensuring their claims emphasize real-world technological applications rather than abstract ideas.

Example of a Patent Claim for an Algorithm-Based Invention

Understanding how algorithm-based inventions are claimed in utility patents requires reviewing actual issued patents. Claims should be drafted to emphasize a practical application rather than an abstract idea. Below is an example of how a real-world algorithm-based invention is claimed in a granted patent.

To further illustrate how algorithm-based inventions are claimed in utility patents, here is the first claim from Google’s search algorithm patent:

Claim 1:

1. A method performed by data processing apparatus, the method comprising: receiving a query determined to be a question query and a corresponding answer generated in response to the question query, the answer determined to be responsive to the question query, wherein each of the question query and the answer has one or more terms; generating a contextual query that includes an element relating to the question query and an element relating to the answer; submitting the contextual query to a rich content search process and receiving data specifying a first set of rich content items responsive to the contextual query, the rich content items ranked according to an order that is indicative of the relevance of each rich content item to a query for which the set was generated; determining first rich content item in the first set of rich content items that meet a context condition that is indicative of a rich content item providing contextual information of both elements of the question query and the answer query; and preferentially selecting from the first content items relative to the second rich content items to be provided as one or more answer rich content items.

This claim demonstrates how an algorithm can be integrated into a system that processes search queries, applies a ranking model, and refines results based on user-specific data, illustrating its technical application beyond a mere abstract idea.

The Cost of Patenting Algorithms

Patenting an algorithm-related invention involves several costs, starting with legal fees for preparing and filing a non-provisional utility patent application. For software and algorithm-based inventions, attorney fees typically range from $10,000 to $20,000, depending on the complexity of the technology. More specialized or intricate algorithms may push costs higher.

In addition to legal fees, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) charges filing fees, which vary based on application details. Basic filing fees range from $60 to $320, with search and examination fees adding another $140 to $800.

After a patent is granted, maintenance fees must be paid at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years to keep the patent active. These fees total about $7,000 over the life of the patent, which lasts up to 20 years.

In total, securing and maintaining a patent for an algorithm-related invention typically costs between $15,000 and $25,000. While this investment can be significant, patents offer exclusive rights that can lead to revenue through licensing, partnerships, or patent sales. For companies with cutting-edge algorithms, these costs are often seen as a strategic investment in market control and long-term profitability.

Challenges in Patenting Algorithms

Obtaining a patent for algorithms can be complicated, primarily because abstract ideas—common in algorithm patenting—are generally ineligible for patents unless they address a specific technical problem through tangible implementation. The benchmark set by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International introduced a two-stage evaluative method to determine whether an algorithm patent claim is too closely related to an abstract idea, which can impact its eligibility under current regulations.

This approach was further shaped by the precedent set in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, which provided guidance on distinguishing between judicial exceptions that qualify for protection and those that fall outside the scope of patent eligibility. Together, these cases reinforce the challenge of securing patents for inventions that rely heavily on abstract concepts, as they require not only a novel idea but also a tangible, practical application to meet the criteria for patentability.

Successfully navigating these legal challenges requires a thorough understanding of patent law, along with strategic maneuvers during the application process. Innovators must position their inventions within practical use cases and demonstrate clear technological advancements to overcome restrictions tied to claims based solely on abstract ideas.

Who Owns an Algorithm? Ownership of Software and AI-Driven Inventions

Ownership of a utility patent for an invention that incorporates an algorithm is typically determined by contractual agreements, including employment contracts and intellectual property assignments. Key considerations include:

• Employee vs. employer rights: If an invention is developed during employment, the employer often retains ownership unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.
• Collaborative development: When multiple parties contribute to the creation of an invention, it is essential to have clear agreements in place regarding ownership rights.
• AI-generated inventions: With AI systems autonomously generating code and models, legal questions arise regarding ownership. Courts and lawmakers continue to refine how AI-generated intellectual property is treated.

Importance of Prior Art Search for Patent Protection

A prior art search is an essential step before filing a utility ?patent application to determine if similar inventions already exist and how broadly/narrowly your application may be drafted. Conducting a thorough prior art search helps assess:

• Novelty: Ensuring the invention has not been publicly disclosed or patented before.
• Non-obviousness: Demonstrating that the invention is not an obvious improvement over existing technology.
• Patent scope: Refining claims to maximize protection while avoiding potential rejections by the patent office.

A comprehensive prior art search will provide a thorough analysis of the existing patent landscape by identifying relevant prior art references, help differentiate your invention from competitors, and strategically draft your patent claims to increase your likelihood of a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO..

Challenges in Patenting Algorithms

Securing a utility patent for a software invention involves several challenges, including:

• Demonstrating technical improvement: The invention must show a concrete technological advancement and real-world utility over prior solutions.
• Avoiding abstract idea rejections: Patent claims should emphasize a tangible application rather than a purely computational method.
• Navigating evolving case law: Supreme Court decisions like Alice v. CLS Bank continue to shape how software patents are evaluated, making it crucial to stay informed of legal developments.

Speak With an Experienced Software Patent Attorney

Software patents, when properly monetized, serve as a critical asset that can generate both short-and long-term revenue while safeguarding proprietary inventions from competitors. At RLG, our attorneys possess extensive experience and specialized expertise in the preparation of software and AI-based patent applications.

This includes drafting comprehensive disclosure documents, articulating the operation implementation of your software system, and delineating its “point of novelty.”.? We collaborate closely with our clients to research and draft a comprehensive patent application, complete with detailed technical descriptions and drawings, all for a transparent fixed fee.? Our goal is to ensure that your software patent application is not only granted but provides long-term legal protection in your technology landscape.

The RLG Guarantee

In addition to a fixed-fee billing approach, RLG offers a money-back guarantee on all prior art searches, provisional patent applications, design patent applications, and trademark applications. To be clear: should our team determine that your invention is not patentable in light of the prior art, a full refund will be provided. If patentable, we will credit the cost of your search towards your new application.

For the trademark and design patent applications, this means that if your application does not receive a notice of allowance for any reason, we will provide a full refund. Our trademark and design patent application packages include all search, preparation, office action, USPTO correspondence, and USPTO filing fees. Please call us at (954) 371-2206 for a free consultation or take our intelligent IP quiz to see what protection is best for your invention.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the criteria for patenting an algorithm?

Algorithms alone cannot be patented because they are considered abstract ideas under U.S. patent law (35 U.S.C. 101). However, an invention that incorporates an algorithm may qualify for a utility patent if it meets certain criteria:

1. More than an Abstract Idea – The invention must apply the algorithm in a way that produces a tangible result or solves a specific technical problem.
2. Novelty (35 U.S.C. 102) – The invention must be new and not disclosed in prior art.
3. Non-Obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) – The invention must not be an obvious improvement over existing technology.
4. Utility (35 U.S.C. 101) – The invention must have a practical and useful application.
5. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter – The algorithm must be part of a broader process, system, or method that improves computer functionality or provides a real-world benefit.

What are the costs involved in patenting an algorithm?

The costs involved in patenting an algorithm typically range from $10,000 to $20,000, which covers attorney fees, USPTO filing fees, and maintenance fees.

It is essential to budget accordingly to ensure the patent process is successfully completed.

What role do patent attorneys play in the patenting process?

Patent lawyers are essential in the patenting process, offering both legal and technical guidance. They help inventors formulate strong patent claims, search for prior art, and steer through the intricate aspects of patent law.

Such expertise is critical to achieve robust patent protection.

What are the alternatives to patenting algorithms?

The most effective alternatives to patenting algorithms are trade secrets, which safeguard proprietary information from unauthorized use, and copyrights, which protect the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves.

These options can provide substantial protection for your innovations.

How can I schedule a free IP strategy call to protect my proprietary algorithm?

To schedule a free IP strategy call for protecting your proprietary algorithm, visit the website of an intellectual property consultant or law firm that offers such services and follow the instructions for booking a consultation.

This proactive step will help you better understand your options for safeguarding your intellectual property.