Dmitry Andreev to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

Solve Intelligence has been ranked the number one intellectual property platform in the latest Legal AI survey published by SKILLS (the Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders Summit). The study surveyed 130 leaders at the world's top law firms about their legal AI product usage across every major practice area, scoring platforms based on live deployments, active pilots, and tools under consideration. In the Patents/IP category, Solve Intelligence placed first with a weighted score of 67, making it the most widely-used platform in the category. See the full report here.

As patent practitioners, the choice to “do nothing” about AI is not a neutral act. 

Law firms or in-house counsel that delay the adoption of AI may believe they are minimizing risk, but oftentimes they are taking on a different set of less visible, long-term risks. 

These hidden costs can accumulate quickly, from compounding inefficiencies in traditional patent drafting workflows to missed revenue opportunities that remain untapped without leveraging AI-driven capabilities.

So, what can patent practitioners do to stay ahead of the game? Here is what the Solve Intelligence team has seen speaking with thousands of practitioners.

Key takeaways

• Waiting to adopt AI is itself a strategic decision with compounding costs.
• Manual patent workflows create time, quality, and knowledge bottlenecks that grow over time.
• Firms already experimenting with AI gain operational insight that late adopters cannot shortcut.
• Low-risk entry points let practitioners build confidence without compromising legal judgment.

Legal AI platforms like Harvey and Legora are valuable productivity tools. Powered by large language models and enriched with legal data sources, firm-specific knowledge, and purpose-built workflows, they perform well on tasks like legal research, document summarisation, and contract or email drafting.

But their workflows are optimised for breadth across practice areas, not for the structural, technical, and jurisdictional depth that patent work requires.

For IP teams that already have access to a generalist platform, or are trying one out, the natural follow-up question is whether a vertical solution adds enough to justify the investment. 

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI specifically for patent practitioners. In our experience scaling the platform to over 500 IP teams, there is no question that patent-specific tooling delivers ROI that generalist platforms alone cannot. This article sets out why.

Key takeaways

• Generalist legal AI tools weren't trained for the structural depth patent work demands.
• Solve Intelligence is shaped by in-house patent attorneys who joined Solve from firms like Carpmaels & Ransford and Fish & Richardson.
• Custom templating lets attorneys match output to house style, client/technology area, or jurisdiction.
• Generalist and patent-specific AI are complementary investments, not competing ones.

When we sat down with Bob Hansen for this conversation, we knew it would be grounded in both legal depth and real-world business experience. Bob is a founding partner of The Marbury Law Group and has extensive experience across patent prosecution, litigation, licensing, portfolio strategy, and complex IP transactions. But what makes his perspective particularly compelling is that he also brings 20 years of real-world experience as an engineer, program manager, and business executive in Fortune 50 companies and start-ups. He understands firsthand how innovation moves from idea to product, and how intellectual property law fits into that journey.

That dual lens is exactly why we wanted to have this discussion. Bob evaluates technology not just as a patent attorney, but as someone who has managed engineering teams, navigated acquisitions and divestitures, raised capital, and built businesses. When someone with that background says AI has been transformative and backs it up with measurable 3 to 4x efficiency gains, it’s worth listening.

Key Insights

• AI adoption requires proof. Bob and his team tested multiple tools before committing, and only moved forward once they saw quantifiable results.
• 3 to 4x efficiency gains changed the business case. By tracking his own drafting time, Bob demonstrated that AI-enabled workflows made fixed-fee work viable at partner rates.
• Demonstration drives adoption. Live drafting sessions, client transparency, and side-by-side cost comparisons created full buy-in from both clients and colleagues.
• Integrated chat removes friction. Keeping research, drafting, and revisions inside one contextual workspace eliminated copy-paste workflows and saved significant time.
• Context is a force multiplier. AI performs best when it understands the full invention disclosure, file history, and drafting materials in one place.
• Speed expands strategic value. Faster drafting didn’t just save time - it enabled better coverage, stronger enablement, and real-time responsiveness to client needs.

About Marbury Law

The Marbury Law Group is a premier mid-size, full-service intellectual property and technology law firm in the Washington, D.C. area, with additional strength in commercial law, litigation, and trademark litigation. Recognized by Juristat as a top 35 law firm nationwide and holding Martindale-Hubbell’s AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating, Marbury serves clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies and mid-size technology businesses to high-tech startups and inventors. Its practitioners bring unusually wide-ranging experience, including former technology executives, government R&D managers, startup founders, in-house counsel, “big-law” attorneys, USPTO patent examiners, and judicial clerks. 

Marbury delivers “big-law” service with the flexibility and personal attention of a smaller firm, pairing high-quality work with efficient, budget-aware billing. Based near the USPTO, the firm has drafted and prosecuted thousands of U.S. and foreign patent applications and trademarks, and advises on IP strategy, diligence, and licensing. Formed in 2009 through the merger of two established practices (with roots dating back to 1994), the firm takes its name from Marbury v. Madison (1803), the landmark Supreme Court case that established judicial review.