Joshua Davenport to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

Both in-house teams and outside counsel can let a purpose-built platform carry the shared foundation for their patent work. They can then focus their limited time on the standards and judgment that set their work apart. AI has made this division of labor more valuable by raising the payoff for turning a practice into templates, instructions, and review criteria that run at scale. Let’s call that codification. The platform can encode a great deal of best practice out of the box, and a team can add its own custom templates and instructions on top. The real question is how much to add and how much to leave to the platform. There is no fixed formula because the right balance changes as the team’s practice, the law, and the technology evolve.

‍Key takeaways

• AI has raised the payoff for codifying patent practice. Codification now guides AI-assisted drafting and review directly, not just junior training.

• A purpose-built patent platform can encode a large body of best practice out of the box, so a team can begin with that foundation rather than write its own.

• Solve Intelligence maintains its shared foundation across more than 700 IP teams, keeping it current far more efficiently than any single team could alone.

• The strategic choice is how much of your own practice to codify on top; scarce expert time should go to the standards and judgment that differentiate your work.

• A named professional still signs off on every filing, so accountability for the result never shifts to the AI.

The most effective patent practitioners are already using AI patent drafting to draft faster, catch claim inconsistencies earlier, and free up hours for the strategic work that actually wins allowances.

Key takeaways

• AI patent drafting tools can reduce application drafting time by up to 80 percent, with Solve Intelligence customers consistently reporting 50 percent or greater efficiency gains across drafting and prosecution 
• Roughly 9 out of 10 utility patent applications receive at least one office action rejection, so prosecution efficiency matters as much as drafting speed 
• Solo attorneys use AI to match larger law firms on turnaround speed and client capacity
• The strongest reported results come from iterative AI–attorney collaboration, with practitioners directing the process and owning the final work product

Solve Intelligence works with over 700+ patent teams as they bring AI into daily practice, and the same pattern shows up again and again: recognising that AI helps is easy, but building consistent, team-wide use is not. Adoption tends to stall for a handful of reasons, from informal early experiments to unclear decision making, and a promising trial can fade out without anyone establishing whether the tool or the rollout was at fault. This playbook lays out the process that gets a team from first experiment to settled habit, with the attorney's judgment in control at every step.

AI makes it practical to rerun patent intelligence as products and patent rights develop. For example, at concept stage, broad freedom-to-operate screening identifies the rights that merit attention. As the design matures, selected patents are escalated for feature-by-feature claim charts, while scheduled monitoring refreshes the analysis when claims are amended or an application proceeds to grant.

This contrasts with the traditional approach, in which landscapes, FTO reviews, and portfolio analyses were commissioned as separate projects at fixed stages. Each took substantial time to complete and was rarely repeated.