Key themes from the IPO Annual Meeting 2026: AI, accountability and digital designs

AI may have dominated discussions at the IPO Annual Meeting this year, but the conversation has moved on from experimentation and adoption to how AI can be used responsibly and effectively, while retaining the human judgement on which clients rely.

With AI now a recurring theme across the IP profession, the more pressing questions are increasingly around its practical use: where it adds genuine value, how its risks are managed and where human expertise remains essential. These are issues we’ve explored previously in our BRAINS v BOTS article, and they came through strongly again in discussions at this year’s meeting.

Across discussions with corporate teams, law firms and IP professionals, the differing pace of AI adoption was clear. At the same time, technological change is creating broader challenges for the IP system itself, particularly when it comes to areas such as patent drafting, TM searching and protecting emerging technologies such as digital designs for example.

Here are some of the themes that stood out:

AI is moving from experimentation to responsible adoption #

AI adoption across the IP profession is becoming increasingly operational, although organisations are at very different stages of that journey.

For some organisations, the focus has shifted from experimentation to incorporating AI into established ways of working. Others are at a much earlier stage and are only beginning to consider how AI should be used and what internal guidance might be needed.

There is no single model for AI adoption across corporate IP teams or private practice, and organisations are making decisions based on their own requirements, clients and appetite for risk.

What does appear to be changing is the nature of the conversation. As AI becomes a more practical part of day-to-day working, attention is shifting from what the technology can do towards where it adds genuine value and how its use should be managed.

Governance and human judgement matter as much as capability #

Alongside greater adoption has come much greater scrutiny of the risks.

Data quality, confidentiality and provenance are increasingly important considerations. Using AI without appropriate safeguards can create risks around confidential information and IP rights, while clients are also looking for greater clarity on how their advisers use AI and the controls they have in place.

Human accountability, therefore, remains central. AI can support and augment the work of IP professionals, but responsibility for the advice and decisions that follow cannot simply be delegated to technology.

This also creates a longer-term challenge for the profession: how do we develop the next generation of attorneys in an increasingly AI-enabled environment?

Junior attorneys have traditionally developed judgement by doing the work, from reviewing information and drafting documents to spotting inconsistencies and learning when something does not look right. If AI takes on a greater proportion of those tasks, firms will need to consider how those skills continue to be developed.

That matters not only for professional development, but for the effective use of AI itself. Identifying an inaccurate or fabricated output requires enough knowledge and experience to recognise that something is wrong.

For now, AI looks more likely to augment the work of IP professionals than replace it. AI can increase capability and efficiency, but meaningful human oversight remains fundamental.

Some technolgies are moving faster than the law #

AI was not the only area where the difficulty of keeping regulation aligned with technological change came through.

IP offices around the world are working to provide greater clarity on the protection of IP in some of the most fast moving technical areas such as computer implemented technology, virtual goods and protection of digital designs. But technology is developing much faster than laws and examination practices can be amended in individual jurisdictions.

For businesses operating internationally, this creates a practical challenge. For example, approaches to protecting these highlighted fields may differ between countries, making it increasingly difficult to rely on a single strategy across multiple markets.

As digital products and experiences continue to evolve, businesses may therefore need to think more carefully about how protection is structured across jurisdictions to secure the strongest appropriate coverage.

The difficulty is that technology can move much faster than the legal frameworks designed to protect it.

An IP profession adapting to technological change #

If one theme connected many of the discussions at this year's IPO Annual Meeting, it was the challenge of keeping pace.

Organisations may be at different stages of AI adoption, but the focus is increasingly shifting towards practical implementation, appropriate governance and ensuring that human expertise remains at the heart of the process.

At the same time, IP systems themselves are having to respond to technologies and forms of innovation that do not always fit comfortably within existing rules.

For IP professionals and businesses, keeping pace will mean making practical decisions about where new technology adds value, how it is governed and how new forms of innovation are protected.