AI in IP: How Clients View AI in Patent Work – Attitudes, Expectations, and Insights from Russell IP
Explore how clients view AI in patent work, with insights from Russell IP Founder and Director Iain Russell.
Context
Welcome to AI in IP, a series of blog posts sharing Iain Russell’s insights into the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) in intellectual property (IP). As Chair of the AI Committee of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), Iain is a leading voice on how AI can be used in IP.
The aim of this series is to highlight how AI can be used in IP, including in some less obvious areas. For example, we have used AI (carefully) to help us create this series of blog posts, first to help us produce a set of questions about AI in IP, then to help us refine transcribed answers to the questions, and finally to produce a series logo and other images to accompany the posts.
Over the course of the blog post series, Iain will provide his own take (i.e., not in his capacity as Chair of CIPA’s AI Committee) on some big questions relating to AI in patents and other areas of IP. In this post, Iain explores how clients view AI in patent work. Future editions will focus on other themes. For an introduction to the topic of AI in IP, see our first post in the series.
Table of Contents
Do companies want their patent attorneys to use AI in patent work?
Some companies do want their patent attorneys to use AI. There is increasing pressure from some companies for patent attorneys to use AI due to its perceived benefits. However, they need to understand the potential risks and implications of using AI for patent work as well as the potential benefits.
Some companies specifically do not want their patent attorneys to use AI. For example, they may prefer to wait for the quality of AI’s outputs to improve, or to avoid the risks of using AI for patent work.
Other companies are ambivalent about whether their patent attorneys should use AI.
It’s important to be aware of the pros and cons of AI use for patent work and make an informed choice. At Russell IP, we proactively engage with those we work with about whether AI should be considered and used. We are receptive to requests to use AI, provided it can be used safely and aligns with everyone’s expectations.
Do companies expect AI to reduce the costs of patent work?
Many companies likely expect AI to reduce the costs of patent work. For example, they may assume that using AI reduces the time required to complete a piece of patent work. However, time savings are sometimes marginal, so lower costs may not be justified.
An alternative perspective is that use of AI could justify a cost premium if it speeds up delivery of the patent work while maintaining quality. An analogy for this is that people often pay more for faster delivery of shopping purchases – the same product is delivered, but a premium is paid for prompt delivery.
AI may reduce costs for some aspects of patent work but not others. Russell IP can advise on when the best time might be to use AI for patent work.
Are inventors worried about confidentiality when AI is used in patent work?
Inventor attitudes to AI confidentiality risks vary widely. Some inventors haven’t considered the risks. Some feel that the risks outweigh the advantages. Others may have considered the risks and decided they are relaxed about patent attorney use of AI in patent work.
Using AI can risk invalidating or narrowing patent protection. This is because disclosure through AI tools can compromise confidentiality. AI systems vary in their approaches to confidentiality. Free tools often use user data for training, while enterprise tools may emphasise data privacy.
At Russell IP, we advise caution. Confidentiality is especially critical in patent work, so confidentiality risks around the use of AI should be treated as seriously as any other disclosure risk.
When can AI be useful in patent work?
Generative AI can be useful where large volumes of content need quick analysis or generation. It may be suitable for tasks where perfect accuracy isn’t crucial (e.g., for summarising prior art in situations in which a detailed and accurate understanding of the prior art isn’t needed). However, relying on AI for legal advice without consulting a specialist can be very high risk.
How do attitudes to the use of AI in patent work differ between startups and multinationals?
Startups often seem more comfortable with the idea of using AI for patent work. They may already use AI tools for other work. Multinationals usually have legal or policy teams which govern AI use. Some large companies prohibit most uses of AI; others allow specific approved tools under strict conditions.
We have seen an increased number of enquiries including AI-generated content, which can be problematic depending on the context. We recommend seeking advice from Russell IP before using any particular AI tool and before relying on anything an AI tool has produced in relation to patents.
Do clients trust AI-assisted patent drafting?
Some initial enquiries we receive include clearly AI-generated draft patent specifications. There is often a belief that such drafts are of acceptable quality or need minimal human input, possibly because they look reasonable to the untrained eye. However, in reality, AI patent drafts can have major flaws that can significantly limit patent value.
At Russell IP, we collaborate closely with those we work with to use AI effectively where appropriate. We want our clients to trust our professional judgment, not the AI tool itself.
Are some industries more open to using AI in patent work than others?
In our experience, high-tech sectors show the most openness to AI-assisted patent drafting and use of AI in other areas of patent work. This aligns well with Russell IP’s main areas of expertise.
Generally, AI works better in patent work relating to computer technologies and mechanical fields than in patent work relating to pharmaceutical or biotech technologies.
Do clients ever ask their patent attorneys directly if AI was used in their case?
So far, no clients have asked this question of Russell IP. We always consult clients beforehand if AI were to be used. Guideline 4 in the epi Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI in the work of Patent Attorneys requires European patent attorneys to find out what a client’s wishes are with regard to the use of generative AI before using generative AI tools in the client’s patent cases.
How should patent attorneys talk about AI use with clients?
Practices vary between firms. Some attorney firms only discuss AI if asked, while others are more proactive about raising the possibility of using AI for patent work. At Russell IP, we welcome discussions about AI use. Where we see beneficial opportunities, we proactively suggest AI, outlining pros, cons, risks and unknowns. The legal landscape around AI is evolving, so we believe open discussion between patent attorneys and their clients is key.
Will clients push patent attorney firms that don’t use AI to adopt it?
We haven’t seen this directly at Russell IP, possibly because we are already open to using AI appropriately.
Some patent attorney firms, especially those with specialisms outside high-tech fields, may be more resistant to the use of AI in their patent work. Clients who value AI use might pressure such firms to adopt AI tools for patent work, or switch to firms which are more receptive to the use of AI.
Any decision about when to use AI for patent work should be carefully considered, and the implications of AI use fully understood by the client before any patent work is carried out using AI.
Conclusion
Client attitudes to the use of AI tools in patent work vary widely. Some clients are enthusiastic about using AI, while others are more cautious. Russell IP can help technology companies understand the potential risks and rewards of using AI in IP, enabling more informed decisions about when to use AI tools.
Come back for future editions of AI in IP, where we will explore these and other questions in greater depth.
In the meantime, if you are interested in using AI in your IP work or protecting AI-related inventions with patents, contact Russell IP today for a free, no-obligation discussion.
Disclaimer
This article is general information, not legal advice. For tailored guidance, please contact Russell IP.
