Addressing Fears of AI in Patent Drafting
I speak from experience because I have trained more than 200
patent professionals in the use of AI-assisted patent drafting
tools: most participants expressed at least one of four common
concerns about using AI tools:
" Fear of data theft
" Fear of data leakage
" Fear of creating unwanted prior art
" Fear of compromising client confidentiality
Understanding Common Concerns
Client confidentiality remains the critical concern mainly for patent attorneys who are using AI tools because for those – different from their inhouse peers – there are strict legal regulations in place that can turn client confidentiality issues into a serious criminal matter.
The integration of generative AI into patent drafting has also raised several common fears, particularly around intellectual property theft when uploading invention descriptions to a service on the Internet and the risk of data leakage in the form of prompt data used to train patent drafting robots. After rationalizing these fears, the solution is to address these concerns with technical safeguards and operational practices to ensure the responsible and effective use of AI-assisted drafting bots.
Ensuring Data Security and Confidentiality
A related concern is the risk of novelty-damaging prepublication. Information submitted to free or inadequately secured AI systems could potentially be exposed, inadvertently entering the public domain and compromising the novelty of an invention. To prevent this, patent professionals should avoid using publicly available AI tools. Instead, they should use enterprise solutions with robust legal agreements that explicitly prohibit data storage or sharing by the AI provider.
Maintaining Control Over the Drafting Process
A less common fear is the potential loss of control over the drafting process. Many users are concerned that AI-generated drafts will be too generic or fail to reflect the nuanced judgment required for high-quality patent applications. To address this, AI must be viewed as an assistant, not a replacement. AI-generated drafts should always be treated as initial suggestions, subject to thorough review, adaptation, and refinement by experienced patent professionals who can ensure technical and legal accuracy.
Managing AI Bias and Error Risks
Concerns about bias and error in AI-generated content are not common. These risks arise because AI models may inherit biases from their training data or struggle to effectively handle highly technical or niche subject matter. To address this, it is common sense that users must ensure that the input provided to the AI is well-structured and specific to guide the system toward accurate outputs. It is not necessary to mention that any AI-generated content must be rigorously validated by experts before being included in a final patent application.
Complementing, Not Replacing, Human Expertise
Many people worry about losing their jobs due to AI, even if they do not say it openly. Some professionals are concerned that AI tools may reduce the need for human patent attorneys and corporate IP specialists. This fear comes from direct experience with AI-assisted patent drafting software. For example, it is possible to create a 20-page patent application with 15 claims in just 2 hours using AI. The same task would take 10 or more hours using traditional methods.
My own experience as a patent attorney with 28 years of professional experience together with the experience of having trained more than 200 patent professionals in the use of AI-assisted patent drafting tools comes in handy when putting that perceived speed gain into perspective. First, the initially "decently looking" patent applications always turn out to be not good after more careful inspection. Human input is needed to turn them into a patent application that can be filed with good consciousness. This is real measurement data: the average speed gain when drafting patent applications with AI-assisted patent drafting software is 50%, and not 90% as one might expect after the initial jaw-dropping experience. In a side-line only: according to my experience, about 20% of the users of AI-assisted patent drafting software experience a speed gain of 3 times or 4 times, as compared with traditional patent drafting methods. But there are about 20% of the users of AI-assisted patent drafting software that do not experience any speed gain, as compared with traditional patent drafting methods, half of which are even slower than using traditional patent drafting methods. I am cautious to mention that fact in public when discussing job-loss fears, but it is a truth backed up by enough observations.
In practise, the job-loss concern can be mitigated by emphasizing the complementary nature of AI. Rather than replacing human expertise, AI increases efficiency and accuracy, allowing patent professionals to focus on the strategic, creative, and high-value aspects of their work that cannot be automated.
In summary, while generative AI in patent drafting raises legitimate concerns, these challenges can be effectively addressed with thoughtful measures. By selecting safe and reliable AI tools, implementing robust safeguards, closely monitoring AI results, and embracing the role of AI as a complement rather than a replacement, patent professionals can confidently harness the benefits of AI while managing its risks. This balanced approach allows professionals to realize the full potential of AI while ensuring the integrity and quality of their work.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
