Webinar: Masterclass – AI Prompt Engineering for Patent Workflows

As AI adoption in patent practice continues to accelerate, a critically important question emerges—How do you get AI to deliver the work product you need and the quality you want?

Please join Solve Intelligence and IPWatchdog on Thursday, February 5, at 12 PM ET for a detailed examination of the practical application of AI prompting for patent practice. This webinar is designed for patent attorneys and in-house counsel who want to move beyond experimentation and understand how prompt engineering can be used as a repeatable skill, enabling more efficient, higher-quality patent work across AI-enabled workflows.

Webinar: Masterclass – AI Prompt Engineering for Patent Workflows

Solve Intelligence CEO Chris Parsonson, General Counsel & U.S. Patent Attorney Justin Doop, and Partner at Faegre Drinker Johnathon Webb, will focus on how sophisticated prompts are written in practice to support high-value tasks such as customizing claims, drafting specifications, performing structured review, responding to Office Actions, and generating and iterating on claim charts.

Chris and Justin will begin with a concise overview of what industry research teaches about effective prompting, including context-setting, constraints, structured outputs, and iterative review. They will then provide examples showing how prompt design directly impacts efficiency, quality, and practitioner control over the output. Finally, they will demonstrate those principles live through attorney-led examples inside Solve Intelligence.

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.

Request Demo

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.

Read Now

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.

Read Now

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

Read Now

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.

Read Now

Webinar: Masterclass – AI Prompt Engineering for Patent Workflows

AI for patents.

Related articles

Dan Rudoy to join Solve’s Customer Advisory Board

EPO G 1/26: How the Coated Steel Strips Case Tests Article 123(2)

Key takeaways

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

Patents and Standards 2026: When SEP portfolios outgrow human review

Key takeaways