IPO European Committee Conference 2025: A Fireside Chat on IP and AI

At the European Practice Conference hosted by the IP Owners Association in Paris, one fireside chat stood out for its insight and urgency: “IP Trends and Developments in AI.”

The session was led by two highly respected experts: Jean-François Adam, who covers all things European and currently serves as in-house counsel at Infineon Technologies, and Jonathan Osha, founding partner of Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP, who brought the US perspective. OBWB, a long-time thought leader in cross-border IP, was also the hosting sponsor of this year’s event, held at the elegant Hôtel le Marois in central Paris. 

Together, Jean-François and Jonathan offered a compelling look into the evolving challenges of patenting artificial intelligence-based inventions – and why practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic are grappling with inconsistent, outdated frameworks that do not sufficiently reflect the reality of modern innovation implementing AI.

IPO European Committee Conference 2025: A Fireside Chat on IP and AI

AI Reshaping the Legal and Commercial Landscape

Jean-François opened with a stark truth that AI is now a commercial necessity. From Nvidia to Apple, the ability to deliver high-quality AI products increasingly defines market success. And for those working in patent law, AI isn’t just transforming their clients’ businesses but it’s transforming their own too.

The AI boom is blurring the lines between disciplines. Chemists, software specialists, and mechanical engineers alike are being pulled into discussions once reserved for computer scientists. The resulting demand for training and upskilling has caught many firms flat-footed, with structural challenges in how law firms manage and share technical knowledge.

Patent Prosecution in the AI Era: Uncertainty Is the Only Constant

From the law firm perspective, Jean-François shared his concern about the inconsistency of patent office examinations, reflecting on his experiences with the EPO. This variability seems frustrating and can be commercially destabilizing. Without predictable examination outcomes, firms may struggle to provide clients with reliable guidance, which in turn disincentivizes EP filings and, for EP filers, drives up prosecution costs which can accumulate to significant amounts.

Jean-François has conducted statistical analyses of 300+ written opinions across fields like chemistry and computer-implemented inventions. His findings are eye-opening:

  • Clarity: A significant proportion of clarity objections he’d reviewed lack sufficient grounding in EPC case law or guidelines (Art. 84, Art. 69, G 2/88, etc.). A striking 60% of clarity objections in AI-related EPO written opinions fall into what Jean-François calls “how-based” objections. For example, these are claims that refer to “obtaining a trained generative model” without specifying the training process.
  • Inventive Step: AI inventions often rely on manipulating data, which examiners may not view as sufficiently technical, especially when the application of a model feels abstract or detached from a clearly defined technical effect. The examiner variability, especially regarding what counts as a “sufficiently technical effect,” introduces a kind of procedural randomness within this sample.
  • Sufficiency of Disclosure: The “black box” nature of many AI models makes it increasingly difficult to prove that a claimed invention works across all described embodiments, especially when data collection itself is costly and time-consuming.

He called for reform to better reflect the realities of AI invention. In his view, AI-based inventions need more legal guidance than any other area of innovation, given its abstract nature and explosive technical development. Even though the EPO has introduced guidance (G-II.3.3.1) on AI-related inventions, and we see decisions starting to flesh out the law particularly with respect to technical character, clarity guidance has not been similarly updated, despite the rise of generative AI and machine learning use cases. Jean-François argued passionately for updates in this area.

Cross-Jurisdictional Views from the US

Jonathan Osha brought the US perspective, highlighting how Section 101 subject-matter eligibility issues dwarf all other concerns in AI-related patenting. Referencing the recent Recentive Analytics v. Fox Group decision from April 2025, he explained how courts often reduce AI-based claims to their abstract core, removing the technical nuances and dismissing them as known processes.

This pattern effectively nullifies the actual claim content and can severely limit the patentability of even transformative AI innovations. Jonathan highlighted that the abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept no matter how groundbreaking it is.

Conclusion

Both speakers serve on the IP5 international taskforce, where industry stakeholders meet with the heads of the five major IP offices (USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO, and CNIPA). While these conversations are promising, true harmonization remains elusive. Both speakers advocated for a common goal with their respective patent offices, i.e., to close the feedback loop that’s currently missing in AI-based patent prosecution, making it easier for practitioners to draft and adapt claims with greater predictability.

The fireside chat closed with a note of both urgency and optimism. Despite the technical and procedural messiness, the economic and societal benefits of AI inventions are undeniable. The speakers and the audience made it clear that what’s needed now is a joint effort from law firms, in-house counsel, and patent offices alike to modernize frameworks and create clearer, more consistent rules for evaluating AI-related patent applications.

AI for patents.

Be 50%+ more productive. Join thousands of legal professionals around the World using Solve’s Patent Copilot™ for drafting, prosecution, invention harvesting, and more.

Related articles

G1/23: Marketed Products Are Prior Art

The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G1/23 on July 2, 2025, addressing whether products put on the market before a patent filing date form part of the prior art when their composition or internal structure cannot be reproduced by the skilled person.

AI Claim Charting - Patent Prosecution

Patent prosecution has always hinged on precision, speed, and strategic foresight. Yet as Office Actions grow in both volume and complexity—often bundling multiple §§102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness) rejections grounded in nuanced claim interpretations and an ever-expanding body of prior art—the traditional toolkit of the patent professional faces serious challenges. Manual claim charting, painstaking annotation of cited references, and labor‑intensive crafting of responses under tight deadlines can create bottlenecks, drive up costs, and leave room for human error.

Enter AI-powered claim charting: a suite of advanced natural language processing (NLP), machine‑learning (ML), and knowledge‑representation technologies that is rapidly reinventing each step of the Office Action workflow. By automating the generation of claim charts, surfacing hidden flaws in Examiner rejections, semantically analyzing claim language, and even proposing targeted response strategies, AI tools are transforming how attorneys and agents prosecute patents.

In this post, we’ll explore four core capabilities of AI‑driven claim charting and how they bring both speed and insight to Office Action responses:

  1. Automated analysis of Examiner rejections
  2. Instant flagging of issues and gaps
  3. Holistic assessment of claim language and prior art
  4. AI‑generated response strategies

The 5 Best Patent Proofreading Software Solutions for Law Firms (2025)

Key Takeaways

  • Proofreading software has become essential: Manual checks can’t keep pace with growing patent complexity and filing volumes. AI solutions can help prevent costly errors, office actions, and post-grant risks.

  • Most legacy solutions fall short of quality control: Many platforms rely on basic rule-based checks, lack real-time drafting integration, and offer limited jurisdictional support, creating workflow gaps and added manual work.
  • Solve Intelligence for AI-assisted patent review: With seamless drafting integration, tracked changes, auto-propagation of edits, and multi-jurisdiction compliance, Solve Intelligence provides unmatched accuracy and efficiency.

G 1/24 Decision: EPO Clarifies Claim Interpretation

The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in case G 1/24 on 18 June 2025, concluding that "The description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation."