Navigating epi AI Guidelines with Confidence: How Solve Intelligence Supports Compliance

In 2024, the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) published its Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in the Work of Patent Attorneys. These Guidelines provide practical guardrails for the responsible use of generative AI in patent practice, reaffirming that professional responsibility, confidentiality, and transparency remain central when AI tools are used.

In our earlier blog post, we outlined the key principles set out in the epi Guidelines. Since then, the Guidelines themselves have not changed. However, the use of AI in patent workflows has continued to mature, and so has Solve Intelligence.

This update highlights how Solve Intelligence supports compliance with the epi Guidelines in day-to-day practice, focusing on concrete product capabilities and supporting processes.

Navigating epi AI Guidelines with Confidence: How Solve Intelligence Supports Compliance

A Quick Refresher: What the epi Guidelines Require

At their core, the epi Guidelines reaffirm a simple principle: the patent attorney remains fully responsible for all professional work, regardless of whether generative AI tools are used.

In practical terms, the Guidelines expect Members to:

  1. Understand the AI tools they use and their limitations.
  2. Ensure client confidentiality and data security.
  3. Review and remain responsible for all AI-assisted work.
  4. Establish and record client wishes regarding AI use.
  5. Communicate about AI use accurately and appropriately.
  6. Prevent cross-client confidentiality risks.
  7. Stay aware of applicable laws and regulations.
  8. Set fees fairly and transparently.

Guideline 1: Understanding AI Tools and Ensuring Accuracy of Output

The epi Guidelines stress that Members must understand the limitations of generative AI, including the risk of inaccurate or unsupported outputs.

At Solve Intelligence, we reduce this risk by grounding AI responses in verifiable legal and patent sources. AI chat outputs include clickable citations, allowing attorneys to review original source material and confirm accuracy before relying on any output. The platform integrates authoritative sources directly into the workflow, including the EPO Guidelines for Examination, EPO Boards of Appeal Case Law, the USPTO MPEP, and USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, each with explicit, clickable references.

In the platform, we also apply layered guardrails to minimise unsupported speculation. These include prompt-level source restrictions, structured output constraints, post-generation citation validation, and real-time output checks. Together, these measures help ensure AI outputs remain accurate, verifiable, and suitable for professional review.

Guideline 2: Confidentiality and Data Security Built Into the Platform

Protecting client data and maintaining confidentiality are foundational obligations for patent attorneys and are central to the epi Guidelines on the use of generative AI.

At Solve Intelligence no data uploaded to or generated within the platform is ever used to train any AI model. Neither Solve Intelligence nor any third party monitors, stores, or repurposes client data outside the user’s control or matter context. All data is sandboxed to the customer’s account and remains strictly confidential.

The platform applies industry-leading encryption standards, including AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.3 encryption in transit. Data is stored on enterprise-grade infrastructure aligned with recognised compliance frameworks, including SOC 2, GDPR, CCPA, and ISO 42001. We also enable firms to choose where their data is stored and processed, ensuring information remains within a selected legal jurisdiction where required.

Guideline 3: Attorney Responsibility and Review of AI-Assisted Work

The epi Guidelines make clear that AI-assisted output must be reviewed and accepted by the attorney before it can form part of any client deliverable.

At Solve Intelligence, we support this by requiring the attorney to review and accept any AI-generated output. Edits made by the AI in any document are always shown in tracked changes with author identification. Furthermore, AI-generated output is accompanied by clickable citations, enabling efficient verification of legal and factual sources.

The product also includes a review functionality allowing the attorney to run custom reviews for draft applications against internal quality standards, client requirements, or professional obligations before finalisation. Responsibility for the final work product therefore always remains with the patent attorney.

Guideline 4: Establishing and Communicating Client Wishes

The epi Guidelines require Members to establish their clients’ wishes regarding the use of generative AI before applying such tools to a client’s matter.

At Solve Intelligence, we support this process by providing clear documentation and guidance explaining how AI is used within the platform, including relevant safeguards and limitations. These materials help attorneys communicate AI use clearly and consistently to their clients.

Guideline 5: Transparent and Appropriate Communication About AI Use

The epi Guidelines confirm that Members may state, for example on their websites, that their work is produced using AI tools, provided such statements are accurate, fair, and dignified.

Solve Intelligence supports this by being transparent about how AI is used within our products. We work with customers to explain our AI workflows and safeguards, enabling accurate and measured communication about AI use in public-facing materials.

Guideline 6: Preventing Cross-Client Confidentiality Risks

The epi Guidelines caution against unintended disclosure of client information through shared AI systems.

At Solve Intelligence, we ensure that data entered into the platform is not used for training of any kind. Client information, prompts, and outputs remain confined to their original context and sandboxed to the user.

The platform provides separate, individual user accounts, and any sharing of data between users requires the explicit permission of the originating user. This approach ensures attorneys retain absolute control over client information.

Guideline 7: Awareness of Legal and Regulatory Developments

The epi Guidelines emphasise that patent attorneys must remain aware of applicable laws and regulations affecting the use of generative AI, including data protection requirements and emerging AI-specific legislation.

At Solve Intelligence, we continuously monitor relevant legal and regulatory developments, including frameworks such as the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, to ensure that the platform remains compliant and aligned with evolving requirements. As regulations develop, we assess their impact on AI use in patent practice and adapt platform policies and safeguards accordingly.

Guideline 8: Fees and Transparency

The epi Guidelines note that fees should fairly reflect the work performed and the level of professional oversight required when AI tools are used.

At Solve Intelligence, we support this principle through clear and transparent pricing, allowing customers to understand how use of the platform may affect workflows and cost structures. This transparency enables firms to plan how AI-assisted work is reflected in client fees in a fair and informed manner.

Conclusion

The epi Guidelines make clear that generative AI can play a valuable role in patent practice, provided it is used responsibly and under appropriate professional oversight.

Solve Intelligence is designed to support this approach by embedding verification, confidentiality, transparency, and attorney control directly into the platform. By aligning product design with the expectations set out in the epi Guidelines, we help patent professionals adopt AI with confidence while maintaining the standards their clients and regulators expect.

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

Patent Attorneys' Guide to Adopting AI: The First 30 Days

Artificial intelligence is already reshaping patent practice, but adopting it swiftly, efficiently and securely is where most firms get stuck. Patent professionals know the productivity upside to using gen AI tools, yet often get derailed when informal experiments run into real-world problems: client confidentiality concerns, inferior work-product quality, delayed internal approvals, and decision-fatigue.

This guide lays out a practical, 30-day plan for adopting AI in patent work, moving from ad hoc trials to a controlled, firm-ready strategy. It shows how you can run a focused pilot, set clear guardrails, train attorneys, and document decisions in a way that satisfies partners, clients, and internal stakeholders.

Hauptman Ham Integrates Solve Intelligence into Patent Practice

Hauptman Ham is redefining patent prosecution with Solve Intelligence. By integrating AI-driven workflows into their patent practice, Hauptman Ham attorneys and agents are delivering office action responses that set a new standard—precise, insightful, and creatively crafted. Their clients are gaining a strategic edge with more innovative outcomes that stand out in a competitive landscape.  

Firm leader Ron Embry describes the value of Solve Intelligence in Hauptman Ham’s patent practice.

“The Patent Copilot system allows practitioners at Hauptman Ham to use more creative strategies in pursuit of broad, defensible patent claims for our clients. We use the advanced functionality of the Solve Intelligence system to explore multiple potential avenues in responding to rejections and prosecuting families of patent applications. We find the tool to be quite useful in integrating different legal strategies into one unified, comprehensive, and nuanced approach to obtaining patent protection for our clients.”

EPO Guidelines 2026: Key Changes Including G 1/24, G 1/23, and AI

The European Patent Office has published a preview of its Guidelines for Examination, effective April 2026. This update incorporates the landmark Enlarged Board decisions G 1/24 (claim interpretation) and G 1/23 (products on the market), alongside a significant change of practice for selection inventions, new rules on colour drawings, and the EPO's first formal guidance on artificial intelligence.

Drafting for the EPO: How AI Can Make the New EPO–IP Australia PCT Pilot a Success

The EPO and IP Australia are launching a new PCT pilot programme on 1 March 2026 which will allow Australian applicants to designate the EPO as their International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities (ISA and IPEA). 

Given the EPO’s rigorous approach to clarity and support requirements, for this pilot programme to succeed, Australian applicants and patent practitioners will have to adapt to draft international applications with EPO-specific requirements in mind.

The launch of this pilot programme will add a new layer of complexity — (and opportunity) for patent practitioners. In a landscape where jurisdictional nuance can shape international search and examination outcomes, AI‑augmented tools such as Solve Intelligence's Patent CopilotTM are becoming increasingly valuable.