Patent Attorneys at Solve Intelligence: Building AI for Patent Practice

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI tools for patent attorneys. This means a design philosophy of developing, testing and refining our platforms specifically with our end-users in mind. We recognize that in order to build the best AI tools for patent attorneys, patent attorneys themselves must be involved in the development process. Their domain expertise, combined with the advanced technical knowledge of our AI and engineering teams, ensures our Patent Copilot isn’t just innovative—it’s tailored to the realities of patent practice, delivering solutions that truly work for attorneys. In this article, we explain what our patent attorneys do here at Solve, and how they collaborate with our wider team and customers to deliver our AI solutions.

Patent Attorneys at Solve Intelligence: Building AI for Patent Practice

Product Development

Our IP team at Solve includes patent attorneys with multi-jurisdictional experience and diverse technical backgrounds. The team plays a pivotal role in shaping our Patent Copilot. From ideation to implementation, their expertise is central to our development process. Here’s how they contribute:

Defining the Problem Space: Our patent attorneys identify the most time-consuming and error-prone tasks in drafting and prosecution, such as claim construction, incorporating edits to lengthy specifications, and prior art analysis.

Collaborating on Feature Design: Our attorneys work closely with our AI and engineering teams to design features that simplify these tasks. For instance, our Patent Drafting Copilot’s functionality was developed with direct input from attorneys in our team who understand the intricacies of patent drafting, and how this can differ for chemical compositions and computer-implemented inventions, for example.

Rigorous Testing: Once features are implemented, our patent attorneys rigorously test them in real-world scenarios and provide critical feedback to fine-tune performance.

Customer Success: Our IP team is uniquely positioned to quickly understand and address customer feedback, even if such feedback stems from a relatively niche area of patent law. Our attorneys are able to leverage their legal expertise to implement custom solutions and new features within our platforms based on customer feedback, with the help of the wider team here at Solve.

Beyond their role in product development, our IP team manages our own intellectual property portfolio - including drafting and prosecuting our own patent applications. This work gives our attorneys first-hand experience of our Patent Copilot, and with it, the opportunity to provide further feedback for the development process.

Collaboration and Education

We are committed to continuous learning and knowledge exchange across teams. We believe that effective collaboration requires a deep understanding of both the legal and technical aspects of our work, which is why we've established a robust cross-disciplinary knowledge sharing program.

Our patent attorneys educate our technical teams through regular training sessions, ensuring everyone understands the fundamentals of intellectual property law and how it applies to our AI solutions. These sessions cover key aspects like patent drafting, prosecution strategies, and the ethical considerations surrounding AI in the legal field.

In turn, our engineering and AI teams conduct knowledge-sharing sessions with the attorneys, keeping them informed about the latest advancements in AI technology, including the capabilities and limitations of different models. This two-way exchange of expertise creates a shared understanding that strengthens our collaborative environment and enables us to develop solutions that are both technically sophisticated and legally sound.

Benefits to Patent Copilot

Through the collaborative approach outlined above, our Patent Copilot delivers key advantages that transform patent practice:

Increased Efficiency: Our attorney-guided development has created AI tools that reduce drafting time by 40-60%, streamlining routine sections and figure management while maintaining consistent output quality across multiple applications.

Enhanced Quality: By automating routine tasks, attorneys can focus more time on complex drafting elements, inventor interactions, and strategic claim development - ultimately producing higher quality applications.

Flexible Integration: Built with direct input from practicing attorneys, our Patent Copilot adapts to individual drafting styles and workflows, allowing attorneys to leverage AI assistance while maintaining their preferred practices and client-specific requirements.

As we continue to evolve and expand our AI platforms, our collaborative approach combining legal and technical expertise will remain central to our mission. We're committed to developing solutions that not only leverage the latest in AI technology, but are also deeply rooted in the practical needs and professional standards of patent attorneys worldwide.

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

UK Supreme Court aligns UK software patentability with EPO approach

The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision moves UK practice closer to the EPO for computer implemented inventions, including AI. Claims with ordinary hardware will usually avoid the “computer program as such” exclusion, but only technical features can support inventive step. In practice, applicants should focus arguments and evidence on technical contribution and inventive step.

Key takeaways

  1. UK moves closer to EPO, inventive step becomes the main battleground.
  2. Ordinary hardware avoids exclusion, but may not support inventiveness.
  3. Only technical features count at inventive step, not business aims.
  4. Neural networks are treated as software, no special treatment either way.
  5. Draft around technical contribution, measurable effects, and system level impact.

Kicking Off 2026: New Investors, New Customers, New Product Features

A lot has happened in the last two months. We wanted to take a moment to share what we've been building, who's joined us, and where we're headed next.

Since we started Solve, the goal has been simple: help IP teams do their best work by combining real-world patent expertise with deep AI research, intuitive UX, and state-of-the-art security. The momentum we're seeing across the business tells us the market agrees as 400+ IP teams across 6 continents now use Solve.

Here's what's new.

Reflections from AUTM: What Tech Transfer Offices Really Need in 2026

Last week, my colleagues and I attended the annual meeting of AUTM, the global association for technology transfer professionals. For anyone building in the intellectual property (IP) space, it’s one of the most important rooms you can be in.

The three-day conference brings together high education decision-makers from around the world who are shaping how intellectual property is evaluated, protected, and commercialized. This year’s conversations revealed something important: the question is no longer if AI will influence tech transfer, but instead about how institutions will integrate it.

PTAB Case Studies of AI Disclosure Requirements: Part I

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a fast-evolving field with new technical methods, systems, and products constantly being developed. This growth has also been reflected in the dramatic increase in patent filings for AI-related inventions. According to Patents and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, more than ten times as many AI-related patent applications were published worldwide in 2019 than in 2013, and the increasing trend has only continued since.

Although AI-related patent applications have been on the rise, explicit guidance on patentability requirements have only recently begun to be published by patent offices around the world. Indeed, as a burgeoning field of technology, AI inventions have unique features, such as the importance of training data and the lack of explainability and predictability of trained AI models, that differentiate such innovations from traditional types of computer-implemented inventions (CII). 

These features raise questions about the interpretation of disclosure requirements, among other patentability requirements, for AI-related inventions. For example, how much information, such as source code, training data sets, or machine learning model architectures, should be provided to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of Title 35 of the U.S. Code § 112(a) or analogs in other patent jurisdictions?

As we await further official guidance from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) on disclosure requirements for AI-related inventions, we can gather initial indications from recent patent prosecution decisions from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) on such issues. In this article, we study a selection of PTAB appeals decisions for applications for AI-related inventions rejected under § 112. To set the background, we first review a classification of AI inventions and USPTO guidelines on disclosure requirements for computer-implemented inventions. After analyzing three case studies, we conclude with general takeaways and best practices, which emphasize that applicants must disclose specific algorithms and implementation details, not just desired outcomes, to satisfy written description requirements.