Blog

AI adoption in patent law firms rarely stalls because partners doubt the technology. The real barrier is commercial justification. 

When evaluating any significant investment, partners ask the same fundamental questions: 

• Does this software actually save us money? 
• Will it create capacity we can monetize? 
• Can it generate new revenue streams? 

Solve Intelligence’s Patent Copilot™ was built with these questions top of mind. This article provides a high-level overview of the business case and ROI breakdown of AI patent drafting and partnering with Solve Intelligence.

After countless conversations with patent attorneys across 5 continents, it’s clear that patent practitioners want AI tools that work like a trusted colleague who is always available, incredibly thorough, and has a genuine understanding of patent law.

At Solve Intelligence, we know what patent attorneys are dealing with because we've been there. Our team includes patent attorneys from firms like Dentons, Haley Guiliano, Quarles & Brady, and Reddie & Grose. We left private practice not to replace patent attorneys, but to build solutions to the problems we personally faced.

In this post, we share the experiences of Solve Intelligence customers who explain how our AI patent platform helps them work faster, with greater accuracy, and create more time for strategic client work. Their stories highlight the real world benefits patent attorneys are seeing in practice.

Discover how responsible AI use streamlines patent drafting, boosts accuracy, and enhances law firm workflows for better IP results.

We are excited to welcome Dina Blikshteyn, partner at Haynes Boone, to Solve Intelligence's Customer Advisory Board.

We are thrilled to announce our attendance at the IPO Annual Meeting 2025 — where leading practitioners come together to explore the evolving role of IP in global innovation.

We’re excited to welcome Kevin Johnson, partner at Quinn Emanuel, to Solve Intelligence’s Customer Advisory Board.

On August 4, 2025, the USPTO issued a memorandum to software-related art units about subject matter eligibility for AI and computer-implemented claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The memo emphasizes that it "is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance".

This memo builds on and refers to previous July 2024 AI guidance. That guidance provided new examples and analytical frameworks for examining AI inventions. This memo attempts to ensure those frameworks are consistently applied across art units.

The memo addresses four areas where examiners often lack consistency when applying the Alice/Mayo steps: mental process analysis, distinguishing claims that recite versus involve judicial exceptions, analyzing claims as a whole, and determining when rejections are appropriate.