10 REASONS FOR NOT USING AI IN PATENT MATTERS

Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been developed to assist patent attorneys in drafting applications, responding to official correspondence from examiners, and preparing notices of opposition and appeals. These tools have already demonstrated significant utility in quickly reviewing prior art related to inventions and summarizing the content of any prior art document almost instantaneously.

While some believe that AI tools will not replace patent attorneys, those who master these technologies may outpace their peers who do not embrace them. Despite the growing enthusiasm among patent practitioners regarding these AI tools, I would like to present ten considerations regarding this emerging technology that many may have overlooked.

To my knowledge, the aforementioned AI tools are online platforms hosted on developers' servers or third-party servers, whether offered free of charge or via paid subscriptions. This is understandable since any AI requires continuous development and training, which can be more effectively achieved by exposing the AI to training from as many diverse users as possible.

1. Therefore, when a patent attorney logs into a platform hosted on third-party servers, the confidentiality of the information provided could be at risk, not only due to potential leaks or security breaches but also because the information (such as drawings or draft claims describing an invention) may be used to train an AI that could also serve competitors of the client company that developed the invention. In essence, using an AI could inadvertently contribute to training it for the benefit of competitors; more training leads to greater AI capability and improved outcomes.
2. Training another's AI simply by using it might not prevent a competitor from gaining immediate advantages since advancements in AI can provide new insights almost instantaneously rather than after the typical 18-month secrecy period before a patent application is published. Thus, when a patent attorney utilizes an AI tool to draft a new application, as soon as the key features of the invention are known to the AI, these features could be leveraged by the AI to suggest wording for claims in subsequent drafts requested by competitors.
3. Additionally, some AI tools have been developed by patent offices worldwide to assist examiners in conducting prior art searches and issuing search reports and examination letters. A private AI tool designed to mimic those used by patent offices could undermine the fairness of the patent system by enabling users to draft claims that minimize the risks of receiving unfavorable search reports.
4. Relying on AI tools might lead to complacency among patent attorneys or diminish their attention—similar to how drivers may become overly reliant on self-driving cars. Over time, this could result in mistakes such as failing to recognize pioneering inventions that require bold independent claims which an AI tool might overlook.
5. The proliferation of these AI tools is likely to result in reduced attorney fees, which may push patent attorneys to expedite their work by relying more heavily on these technologies in a deflationary spiral.
6. Over time — let's say within a decade — only a few leading AI tools will prevail among many others; consequently, the market may divide into high-end solutions accessible only to large IP firms and corporations, and average tools available to others.
7. Professional insurance premiums may increase or decrease depending on how these developments unfold in the future.
8. Eventually, professional orders will need to regulate this matter in some capacity. Personally, I advocate for mandatory disclaimers informing clients when documents are drafted with the assistance of an AI tool, especially if developed by third parties.
9. Some IP firms are certified (for example ISO certified in Europe); certificators will also need to reconsider their standards regarding the use of these AI tools by patent attorneys.
10. Cultural homogenization is another concern; I have seen demonstrations of an AI tool tailored for US practices regarding argument construction and formatting. Patent practitioners know that Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, etc., draft claims and descriptions differently according to their respective "patent cultures." There is thus a risk that diverse patent cultures may converge into a single approach within a very short timeframe.

This article has been drafted with the help of an AI and, no, I didn’t ask AI to blackmail itself, I simply asked the AI to do the proof reading of my draft, for improving the English :)