Puya Partow-Navid’s Post

I greatly agree to Clint Mehall's great article here, but since he asked here’s a slightly opposing view to spark the discussion: An LLM could easily be finetuned on all published applications of the client, selected competitors, or even the entire technical field. Who will come up with a better first draft of the claims, such a vastly literate LLM or an associate who has seen maybe a handful of relevant applications? Another use case is using the LLM as a brainstorming buddy to let it suggest workarounds for a given claim draft. Also this will improve quality, right? That said, my recommendation is to use AI to make suggestions, not decide anything obviously. Thinking that the entire process from the IDF to the full patent application can be automated with a 1-click AI, as some seem to propose, is a big mistake in my opinion. It should always be the human who decides on the claims in the end, not the AI. The reason is that deciding on the claims is a highly strategical task that has no analytically optimal solution. Yet, many parts of the patent drafting process can be greatly streamlined with AI, even with off-the-shelf LLMs. Coincidentally, I’m running a whole online seminar on this topic on Tuesday. Ticket sale ends tonight though: https://lnkd.in/djeMZKUc 

Will generative LLMs draft high quality patent claims in the future? I don’t think so. I’ve touched on this is short form in the past, but please read my article on IPWatchdog today that goes into further detail about my opinion. Let me if you agree or disagree. #patentdrafting #patents #patentattorney https://lnkd.in/eDaUzzqi

Germany's Federal Court of Justice allows AI-generated inventions to be patented with a human inventor listed. This decision reflects evolving technology and shows the importance of updating patent laws. #PatentLaw #AIInventions #LegalTech

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗕𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 Don't let patent eligibility be an afterthought in your patent strategy and execution. Patent eligibility isn't just another legal requirement—it's a fundamental consideration that should shape your entire patent roadmap. Here's why: • 𝗜𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁: Not all aspects of your technology are equally likely to satisfy the patent eligibility requirement. Understanding eligibility helps you focus your patent protection on what's most likely to be granted. • 𝗜𝘁 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: How you describe your invention can make or break its eligibility. The right framing and terminology from the start can mean the difference between success and rejection. • 𝗜𝘁 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆: Patent claims that are drafted with eligibility in mind from the beginning are more likely to survive patent office scrutiny and potential legal challenges. • 𝗜𝘁 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: The language you use to describe and claim your invention influences which examiner is assigned to your application. Getting classified into a low-eligibility category (such as business methods) can result in assignment to an examiner who rarely grants patents. Your examiner assignment can dramatically impact your chances of success. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 Trying to "fix" eligibility problems after drafting your patent application is like trying to add a foundation after building a house. The consequences can be severe: • Extensive rewrites that drive up costs • Delays that put your patent rights at risk • Weakened patent protection that may not survive challenges • Complete rejection of your patent application This is particularly critical for software and AI patents, where eligibility hurdles are especially challenging. Working with a patent attorney experienced in navigating these requirements is essential for success. Remember: strong patents aren't just written—they're architected with patent eligibility in mind from day one. #patents #ip #softwarepatents

Selecting the right expert can make or break a patent case. The recent article on Kluwer Patent Blog, authored by Hannah Rigby, delves into key lessons for choosing the best experts. Understand the importance of: ⚖ Understanding the expert's role and aligning it with case needs. 🎓 Thoroughly vetting the expert's background and experience. 🎙 Ensuring clear communication and presentation skills. These insights are invaluable for anyone involved in patent litigation. 🔗 Read the full article #PatentLaw #ExpertSelection #LegalInsights #IntellectualProperty #PatentLitigation

Upending 230 Years of Patents with One Word   Since 1790 (just after ratification of the Constitution) the US Patent Act has required that to receive a patent, an invention must be new.   Later this week, bipartisan legislation is scheduled to move smoothly through markup in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation removes the word “new” from the Patent Act. No one seems to be paying attention to that tiny, but earth-shattering change.   The PERA Act (Patent Eligibility Restoration Act) reverses a trio of Supreme Court cases from a decade ago—all unanimous, despite a Supreme Court that rarely agreed on anything. Application of those cases, however, has led to disarray in the Federal Circuit and frustration from various industries.   The PERA Act preserves some of the Supreme Court’s language and rejects other important parts, while aiming a wrecking ball at 230 years of patent history. If it continues to sail through, we will have to adapt to a system in which patents are now granted for things that aren’t new. This change will significantly hamper our lead in AI innovation; burden Tech products; and distort medical innovation.    There is a way to clarify the caselaw, preserving the Supreme Court’s intent without frustrating industries such as medical diagnostics and software. But we should tread carefully before upending 230 years of patent law.

It is a fundamental concept of patent law (and trials!) that, in order for a patent claim to be valid, the claimed invention must be "new", "useful" and "non-obvious." The requirement that the invention be "new" is the first requirement of the patent statute. 35 USC Sec. 101 declares "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent, therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." What are they thinking?

Here are the results of yesterdays poll! The wisdom of the crowds was correct. About 20% of larger firms and 25% of all firms have enabled GPT drafting tools at Patent Bots. While not a scientific poll, I suspect this is a good approximation for the percentage of patent law firms willing to use GPT for patent drafting.

$100-400M: minimum addressable market for AI patent prosecution tools. In managing large portfolios, in-house counsel often have bandwidth only to spot check outside counsel work. AI can help. In-house counsel might spend 10-20 hours per week spot checking outside counsel's work. Valuing in-house counsel time at $400/hour (conservatively) means this work costs $200-400k per year per in-house counsel. A large law department may employ 5-10 such counsel. So the total cost might be $1-4M per year. There are easily 100 such companies in the US (conservatively), bringing the cost of in-house counsel time to $100-400M per year. International companies add to this market. Law firms may also wish to use the tool to improve their work product before sending it to the client. They too add to the addressable market. Read my full article on AI-led patent portfolio development here: https://lnkd.in/gXjUBAJD

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐀𝐈) 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐬 AI is transforming how we approach legal work. What used to take weeks, like drafting a patent, can now be done in less than 45 minutes. Join me for a two-day onsite course on AI-assisted drafting hosted by the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT). Whether you want to learn how to protect inventions with patents or stay updated on legal tech, this course will equip you with knowledge and skills in AI-assisted drafting that are setting the new standards in patent drafting. 💡 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐘𝐨𝐮’𝐥𝐥 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧: * AI-assisted techniques that accelerate the patent drafting process. * The latest trends and technologies in patent law and AI. * Practical skills to protect innovations in today’s competitive market. * Knowledge of Innovation Marketing and Commercialisation of your new skills. 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬: 🗓 Dates: Fridays, 13 & 20 September 2024 ⏰ Time: 09:00 am - 06:00 pm Singapore Time 📍 Location: SIT@Dover, 10 Dover Drive, S138683, Singapore 💰 Pricing: Starting at SGD254 Don’t miss this opportunity to stay at the forefront of legal innovation and patent law. Secure your spot today and transform the way you protect inventions! Limited spaces available. 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐰: https://lnkd.in/gaF8E2VE See you. #AIAssistedPatentDrafting #RobotPatentDrafting #PatentDrafting #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #LegalInnovation #LegalTech Matthew Wahlrab; Rich McDonnell; Bruce Vojak; Christian Behr; Sam Bergstrom; Magnus Hakvåg, 🔑Maria Boicova-Wynants Donal O'Connell; Sanaz Javadi Farahzadi; Dr. Dominique Christ; Dr. Claas Gerding-Reimers; Erdem KAYA; Archana Pandit; Udo Gennari; Priggya Arora; Shalini Sitaraman Menezes, ABD; Magda Voltolini; Ivan Gauci Mustafa Cakir, RTTP, QPIP, Bastian Best; Dr. Jörn Plettig; Martin Schlosser; Henry K.H. Wang; Philipp Hammans; David Perkins — Software Patent Expert; Mário Castro Marques; David Durand; David Kalow; Dr. Benjamin DELSOL (PhD, LL.M); Stefan Brehm; Bastian July; Ines Duhanic, LL.M. (Stockholm); Amr Eldakak;