The AI Partnership Behind CipherLaw’s Patent Drafting Transformation

CipherLaw founder James Denaro explains about how Solve Intelligence's AI patent software is transforming his firms workflows.

The AI Partnership Behind CipherLaw’s Patent Drafting Transformation

CipherLaw is an intellectual property firm focused on the legal challenges facing innovators in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. The firm combines deep patent expertise with modern AI-enhanced workflows to deliver investment-grade IP protection for technology companies at scale and at speed. A core part of CipherLaw's mission is positioning companies to present compelling IP portfolios when raising capital—whether seeking venture funding, growth equity, or debt financing. The firm's practice also includes analysis of evolving technology regulations and digital policy affecting AI and cybersecurity companies.

For CipherLaw founder James Denaro, the way patents are drafted has fundamentally changed. What once took weeks of effort can now be done in days while achieving a depth and breadth of coverage that was previously impractical when using the right AI tool.

“We’re drafting patents in 3 days that used to take 3 weeks. And covering 5x more embodiments than legacy drafting techniques,” says Denaro. “This is the new reality of patent preparation when you combine expertise with the right AI workflows.”

At the core of CipherLaw’s transformation are proprietary AI workflows that integrate Solve Intelligence’s AI Patent Copilot. With this, CipherLaw can move faster and cover more ground and ensure that every aspect of an invention is thoroughly protected for their clients.

What’s different now:

  • Drafting time cut from weeks to days
  • Technical detail expanded across every embodiment
  • Broader protection, with one implementation now extended into entire families of solutions

One recent case makes this shift clear. A cybersecurity startup came to CipherLaw with a novel threat detection algorithm. The firm analyzed the company’s codebase with its proprietary solutions, then iterated on a patent application using Solve Intelligence. Within just 72 hours, CipherLaw produced a complete draft that included:

  • Detailed specifications for edge cases
  • Alternative architectures
  • Defensive variations to anticipate future competitors
  • A level of technical depth that would have taken weeks to develop manually

As one CipherLaw client told Denaro: “This is the patent application we would have written if we had unlimited time and budget.”

Denaro also credits Solve Intelligence’s effectiveness to the way its product was built. In the legaltech space, there is often a divide between tools designed from the outside and those shaped by people who have lived the challenges of law practice. Solve Intelligence had patent attorneys from the very beginning, driving its product and company vision, and that insider perspective has been critical to developing product capabilities that reflect the realities of patent practice.

For Denaro, the conclusion is clear:

“Higher quality at dramatically lower costs—this is what happens when you have the right AI workflows. The firms still taking three weeks to draft what we do in three days? They’re already obsolete.”

CipherLaw’s success story shows how the combination of deep expertise and Solve Intelligence’s AI Patent Copilot is setting a new standard in patent preparation: faster, more comprehensive, and built for the speed of innovation.

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

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.

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.

Built for IP: How Banner Witcoff Is Raising the Bar on Patent Work with Solve Intelligence

"We viewed our choice of AI platform as significant to the future of our patent practice. After extensively evaluating many products, we concluded that Solve Intelligence best met the needs of our attorneys and our clients." Laura Brutman, Shareholder, Banner Witcoff

Patents and Standards 2026: When SEP portfolios outgrow human review

The 8th UCL Patents and Standards conference brought together all the key standard essential patent (SEP) players on both the holder and implementer sides. 

By the end of day two, one technical question kept resurfacing across panels that were nominally discussing other topics. How does anyone actually assess essentiality and validity at the scale modern declared portfolios now reach? At Solve Intelligence, this is the question we have built our platform to answer.

Key takeaways

  • At today's portfolio scales, AI is a precondition for SEP essentiality and validity assessment, not an enhancement of human review.
  • Streaming standards are fully in SEP territory, bringing implementers with no licensing history into the same mapping problems as in cellular standards.
  • SEP disputes default to parallel multi-jurisdiction proceedings, requiring position alignment across every forum before the first filing.