Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

We are excited to welcome Dan Rudoy, Shareholder at Wolf Greenfield, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.

Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

Dan chairs Wolf Greenfield’s Electrical & Computer Technologies Practice and sits on the firm’s Executive Committee, where he has practiced for more than 15 years. His practice focuses on IP counseling, patent portfolio development, and patent prosecution for clients working across a broad range of technologies. A significant and growing part of that work centers on artificial intelligence and machine learning, including model architectures, agentic systems, and new algorithms. He is especially active in “tech bio” work at the intersection of software and life sciences, including bioinformatics and the computational workflows behind drug discovery, diagnostics, and digital health. His work also covers enterprise software, including databases, algorithms, and cybersecurity, and extends to electronics, radar, and medical device technologies.

Dan brings a rare combination of technical and legal credentials to this work. He holds a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Harvard University and a JD, summa cum laude, from Suffolk University Law School, alongside degrees in mathematics and computer science from the University of Pennsylvania. Earlier in his career, he conducted engineering research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory, giving him a working engineer’s understanding of the inventions he now helps protect.

His practice spans the full IP lifecycle. Dan works regularly with start-ups, mid-size and multinational companies, non-profit organizations, and investors, advising on IP strategy and portfolio development in the United States and abroad, and on matters well beyond prosecution, including due diligence, trade secrets, technology and IP agreements, open-source, and freedom to operate.

Within Wolf Greenfield, Dan leads much of the firm’s work integrating AI into its day-to-day practice, across both the legal and operational sides of the business, and he drives a broader effort around AI-enabled practice innovation. He is an active voice on how AI is reshaping patent practice. He is also a frequent speaker and author on how to patent AI inventions, and on the eligibility and disclosure challenges they raise. That mix of deep technical fluency, full-lifecycle prosecution experience, and a forward-looking view of AI makes him an excellent fit for Solve’s Customer Advisory Board.

As Solve Intelligence continues to build AI tools that modernize and accelerate how IP teams work across the entire patent lifecycle, Dan’s perspective as a technically grounded practitioner and practice leader will be a valuable addition to our mission.

“AI is fundamentally changing how lawyers, and patent practitioners in particular, work day to day, and it is one of the most exciting shifts the profession has seen in a long time. Solve understands that patent prosecution is high-stakes, judgment-driven work, and builds tools that augment practitioners rather than replace their expertise. That’s exactly why I’m joining its Customer Advisory Board, where I look forward to contributing a technical and practice-leadership perspective as Solve raises the bar for legal AI.”

Dan Rudoy, Shareholder, Wolf Greenfield

“Dan brings a great depth of technical expertise in AI and machine learning, paired with years of front-line prosecution experience and unique insight into how the patent profession is adapting to AI. His insight into what excellent patent work requires, from invention through portfolio strategy, will be invaluable as we continue building tools that help practitioners draft, prosecute, and manage high-value IP. We’re delighted to welcome Dan to our Customer Advisory Board.”

Chris Parsonson, CEO & Co-founder, Solve Intelligence

We look forward to Dan’s insights and contributions as Solve Intelligence continues to advance AI-driven solutions for the entire patent workflow.

Check out the rest of our Customer Advisory Board here.

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

How to Build an Invalidity Claim Chart: A Practical Guide

An invalidity claim chart is a structured document that maps, for example, each limitation of a patent claim against prior art to show the patent should never have been granted. If you’re defending against infringement allegations, preparing an IPR petition, opposing a European patent, or advising a client on patent risk, knowing how to build one correctly is non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

•       A well-built invalidity chart maps every claim limitation to prior art, element by element, with pinpoint citations to the exact column, line, page, or figure.

•       When IPRs reach a final written decision, the PTAB now finds every challenged claim unpatentable around 70% of the time; and the chart is a key component of getting a petition instituted in the first place.

•       Solve Intelligence’s Charts generates fully cited, limitation-by-limitation invalidity charts in minutes rather than days, flags weak limitation coverage candidly, and lets attorneys inspect the reasoning behind every mapping.

LAC 2026: What Generic and Biosimilar IP Teams Think About AI

Generic and biosimilar IP teams are already using AI for prosecution history and FTO work. The live debate is not about adoption, but internal framing of quality and coverage extension without reducing headcount. The teams furthest along chose the former.

Key takeaways

  • Generic and biosimilar IP teams use AI primarily for prosecution history summaries, invalidity analysis and FTO claim charting.
  • Viewing AI as a quality and coverage extension drives durable internal adoption.
  • General-purpose AI cannot reliably interpret claim scope from prosecution history; patent-specific tools are required.

Aliza Panjwani Joins Solve

We’re happy to welcome Aliza Panjwani as a Legal & Product Engineer.

EPO G 1/26: How the Coated Steel Strips Case Tests Article 123(2)

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI tools purpose-built for patent prosecution and opposition workflows. European teams, including cross-Atlantic firms like HG, use Solve Intelligence to stay ahead of EPO doctrine shifts as they happen. In this article, we cover the three referred questions in G 1/26, the practical implications for prosecution and opposition teams, and what to do before the decision lands.

Key takeaways

  • G 1/26 asks whether G 1/24's rule to consult the description extends from patentability assessment to Article 123(2) added matter.
  • The underlying case (T 873/24) turns on whether "ratio of titanium to nitrogen in excess of 3.42" means a weight ratio or a molar ratio.
  • The referral poses three sets of questions: admissibility under Article 112(1), the reach of the description in claim interpretation, and the consequences for Article 123(2).
  • If the Enlarged Board extends G 1/24 to Article 123(2), description-based narrowing applies to added-matter assessment across all European proceedings.