Level Up Your IP Strategy - Senior IP & Patent Leaders, see AI in action.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a theoretical issue in patent drafting, and many firms are already using AI-assisted workflows in some form. The harder question now isn’t whether to use AI, but how to talk to clients about using it.

Key insights

• Focus on better drafting quality, enforceability, and fewer avoidable downstream problems.
• Walk through data handling so confidentiality and retention protections are easy to trust.
• Explain inventorship stays human and the attorney remains responsible for every word.
• Keep the process clear and documented so expectations stay aligned from day one.

For some clients, AI usage signals efficiency and modernisation. For others, it raises immediate concerns about confidentiality, inventorship, and quality control. Those concerns are legitimate, so the key is to approach conversations about AI in a way that is structured, transparent, and grounded in professional responsibility.

In practice, the most effective discussions with clients will focus on outcomes rather than technology.

This article provides a structured framework to use when talking to clients about using AI, such as Solve Intelligence’s Patent Drafting Copilot^TM, in patent drafting.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate into legal practices, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued guidance to assist patent attorneys with adopting AI tools in patent drafting, prosecution, and other areas of patent law.

In this article, we summarize the key compliance requirements from the USPTO's guidance and explain how Patent Copilot™ helps practitioners meet these obligations while leveraging AI's benefits.

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.

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.