AI for Patents in Every Jurisdiction

Patent law may be global in scope but local in practice, forcing attorneys to navigate complex and often conflicting jurisdictional requirements.

Drawing on their expertise in AI-driven patent drafting, Harry Bedford, Founding Member of Legal & Product Team at Solve Intelligence shows how jurisdiction-aware tools like Patent Copilot can embed local requirements directly into the drafting process, enabling attorneys to move from reactive adaptation to proactive, globally consistent strategies.

Experte Harry Bedford

UK & European Patent Attorney | Solve Intelligence

Show Profile

The strategic advantage of AI for patents

Patent attorneys work in a global market, but patent law operates on a local level. Each jurisdiction has its own laws, examination practices, and procedural requirements that transform what should be a unified global strategy into a complex web of compromises for different countries.

This fragmentation creates daily challenges for practitioners. The ability to draft and prosecute applications across jurisdictions is one of the profession’s most commercially valuable skills, and the best outcomes come when these differences are considered during drafting – before an application is even filed.

AI offers a new way to address this complexity. By embedding the requirements of multiple jurisdictions directly into the drafting process, AI can help patent attorneys produce applications that are ready for the combinations of offices their clients’ business strategies demand.

The inefficiency of reactive drafting

Too often, drafting follows a reactive path. Attorneys draft to satisfy the requirements of one office (usually their local office), and only later adapt for others. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to plan ahead if it is not clear at the outset whether an application will eventually form a multinational family. The issue however is that, once an application is drafted and filed, it can be very difficult to adapt it sufficiently to meet the requirements of other offices without adding subject matter. Taking the EPO and US as examples, a number of issues often arise:

US to EPO

Lack of Support for claim combinations: Claims in the US are usually singular-dependent, creating a flat claim structure. When a US-drafted application reaches the EPO, through a PCT or priority-claiming application, support for combining claims can be difficult to find. Features that were scattered across separate singular-dependent claims in the US version may lack the connecting disclosure needed to support a coherent multiple-dependent claim structure. This can present significant challenges, particularly during prosecution when an amendment to the subject matter of several dependent claims may be desirable. 

Intermediate Generalisations: US applications often contain disclosure scattered throughout the specification to support broad claim amendments during US prosecution. However, this approach creates intermediate generalisation problems at the EPO. European examiners regularly raise such objections, warning attorneys that they cannot simply cherry-pick individual features from different embodiments or examples to amend a claim.

Optional Language and Permissive Drafting: US drafting style frequently employs optional language such as "may," "can," and "in some examples" to provide maximum flexibility during prosecution. This permissive approach allows attorneys to present features as not required, or non-essential. However, this same flexibility creates comprehensibility issues at the EPO. European examiners may raise any number of clarity, added-matter and even sufficiency objections when specifications are peppered with conditional language that obscures which features are actually part of the invention versus mere possibilities.

EPO to US

Overly-limiting claims: Generally, inventive step is a higher bar to patentability than obviousness (§ 103) in the US. Demonstrating an inventive step requires claims to include all the essential features necessary for a technical effect. Such features may not be necessary in US claims. Time therefore has to be taken by an attorney to amend the claims when starting from a European draft.

The problem-solution approach: European applications typically structure their description around the EPO's problem-solution approach - identifying a problem in the art, perhaps even referencing the prior art, and then presenting the invention as the solution to said problem. This rigid narrative can inadvertently narrow US claim interpretation and candidly referring to prior art is usually avoided.

Differing drafting styles: European drafting conventions favor direct, unambiguous language that clearly defines the invention's boundaries. The EPO encourages precise terminology and explicit statements about what the invention "is" rather than what it "may be." While this directness serves European requirements well, it can create vulnerabilities in US prosecution. US practice often benefits from broader functional language.

Reacting to these types of issues after drafting may lead to inconsistent claim scope across jurisdictions, and increased costs from repeated amendments and local counsel reviews.

Jurisdiction-aware AI

AI already has the capability to help patent attorneys manage these differing jurisdictional requirements. Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot has several features that are helping attorneys work more efficiently. 

Region Specific Algorithms

Firstly, Patent Copilot employs jurisdiction-specific AI algorithms built by attorneys qualified in those jurisdictions. These algorithms form 'region drafters' that are easily selectable by an attorney. Each drafter is configured to adhere to specific requirements, conventions, and best practices of respective patent offices. When drafting any section of an application - whether it be the background, summary, description or claims - attorneys can simply select their target jurisdiction and language from a dropdown menu, and the appropriate region drafter is loaded for use.

Consider the differences in how Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot's EPO and USPTO claim drafters operate:

EPO AI: Built around European practice and the Guidelines for Examination, Solve Intelligence's EPO claims AI considers essential features necessary for a technical effect, analyses prior art from a novelty and inventive step perspective, and automatically structures claims with multiple dependencies, reference numerals and an editable maximum of 15 claims to avoid excess fees.

USPTO AI: Focused more on drafting to achieve novelty, Solve Intelligence's USPTO claims AI uses more functional language, automatically creates singular-dependent claim structures, and defaults to 20 claims as standard.

Of course, in addition to the US and EPO, Solve Intelligence supports all key jurisdictions in this manner, including Canada, China, Japan and South Korea.

Full User Customisation

Secondly, Patent Copilot offers extensive customisation capabilities that allow attorneys to create jurisdiction-specific templates tailored to their practice and client needs. Beyond selecting individual jurisdictions, attorneys can configure the AI to draft in their particular style while simultaneously incorporating a mixture of jurisdictional requirements into a single, cohesive template.

This template-based approach enables attorneys to pre-configure the AI and its region drafters to automatically blend the requirements of multiple target jurisdictions. For instance, an attorney working with a client seeking protection in both the US and EPO can create a template that incorporates US claim drafting with EPO language for support of claim combinations and their technical contributions. The attorney simply loads the appropriate template, and the AI automatically drafts according to the preconfigured jurisdictional requirements.

Drafting is standardised across all applications that use the same template, ensuring consistency in approach and quality. This ultimately reduces the burden on the attorney, allowing them to focus on the substantive legal and technical aspects of the invention rather than constantly switching between different jurisdictional mindsets during the drafting process.

Intelligent Rewriting

Thirdly, Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot provides intelligent rewriting capabilities based on saveable instructions that dramatically reduce adaptation time when jurisdictional conversion becomes necessary. Rather than requiring attorneys to manually redraft entire sections, the system can execute targeted transformations using pre-configured conversion rules.

For example, attorneys can save instructions to rewrite summary sections according to a European format, or automatically adjust a set of US claims to include multiple dependencies whilst bringing the total number of claims down to 15. When applied to existing applications, these saved instructions can also automatically identify relevant support and restructure content according to the target jurisdiction's requirements.

These rewriting capabilities prove particularly valuable when prosecution strategies evolve or when clients decide to expand their filing programs after initial applications are already drafted and filed. Instead of starting from scratch or spending hours manually adapting existing content, attorneys can apply their saved conversion instructions to transform applications efficiently while maintaining consistency with their established practice standards. Of course, rewrites are always tracked for attorney review, keeping the attorney in control throughout the process.

Takeaways

The jurisdictional challenges that come with entering Europe from a foreign filing are already being addressed by AI technology. Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot is already enabling many European attorneys to produce or amend applications that meet the specific requirements of the EPC in much shorter timescales, without sacrificing on quality.

See you at IP Service World

If you found this blog post insightful, join us at IP Service World 2025. Visit our booth to explore how AI is transforming invention harvesting, drafting, and prosecution, and more - We'll even give you an exclusive preview of our latest features. Discover why leading patent attorneys worldwide choose Solve Intelligence as their AI platform of choice.

Solve Intelligence is the AI platform helping legal teams across the patent process. Backed by Y Combinator, Microsoft, and Thomson Reuters, our team of attorneys and AI experts builds tools for drafting, prosecution, and invention capture. 200+ IP teams (e.g. DLA Piper, Siemens) use Solve to draft smarter—reporting efficiency gains of up to 90%.

Do you like what you read? Share this post or leave us a comment!

Comments

Hello ipserviceworld.com Webmaster.

Write comment

* These fields are required