How AI and Strategic Drafting Can Reshape the Patent Landscape
How AI and Strategic Drafting Can Reshape the Patent Landscape
December 2, 2024 — In reviewing an insightful article by Dr. Ian Schick, I encountered a compelling argument about the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in the patent drafting process. Dr. Schick suggests that AI can streamline labor-intensive tasks—like preparing detailed descriptions and refining drawings—freeing patent professionals to devote their expertise to high-value matters such as claim drafting and inventor interviews. He anticipates that this shift could reduce the total drafting time per application from approximately 20 hours to around 6.7 hours, thereby lowering service fees to one-third of their current level.
While I hesitate to label detailed descriptions and drawings as “low-value,” there is no denying they consume a significant share of the preparation effort. Using AI to automate portions of these steps appears both logical and efficient, ultimately enhancing overall patent quality. Notably, Dr. Schick’s illustrative figures and tables break down the drafting process in a manner that highlights each task’s value—though I would have preferred to see prior art investigation more prominently included, as it is integral to most filings.
Why Detailed Descriptions and Drawings Are Crucial
In practice, the initial specification’s thoroughness often outweighs the importance of the original claim set. Rarely do claims issue without amendment; examiners commonly identify grounds for rejection that lead to strategic adjustments. When amending claims, an applicant must stay within what is explicitly or implicitly disclosed in the filed specification. Therefore, the application’s initial level of detail profoundly influences the ultimate patent scope.
Moreover, companies increasingly recognize the importance of accounting for European patent standards at the outset. Filings tailored to U.S. or Korean rules can falter under Europe’s more exacting scrutiny, where Article 84 objections or issues with non-allowable intermediate generalizations frequently arise. A robust drafting strategy should anticipate these hurdles by integrating European requirements from the beginning.
Drafting Strategies and the Role of AI
From a drafting standpoint, an effective approach is to conceptualize the overall inventive idea through schematic diagrams or “conceptual figures,” and then systematically introduce variations as they become clear in later product-development stages. Highlighting which features are essential, optional, or purely enhancements clarifies the invention’s scope. At the same time, such categorization—if done too rigidly—might inadvertently bolster an examiner’s view that a claimed invention is an obvious combination of known elements. Caution and balanced drafting are therefore prudent.
For patents serving as strategic “offensive weapons,” it is well worth investing time and resources in a detailed specification, high-quality figures, and a thorough review of relevant prior art. Here, AI offers considerable advantages: in my own practice, I have used ChatGPT-4 to review and refine sections of a recently disclosed specification on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, finding it especially helpful in reducing preparation time without sacrificing quality.
The Cost Equation
It is instructive to consider cost benchmarks. Mid-level associates at major U.S. law firms often command hourly billing rates near $750. Based on international data comparing the United States and Korea, the U.S. purchasing power parity (PPP) is about 1.4 times higher, with average wages (in PPP terms) around 1.75 times higher. By that logic, a mid-level associate in Korea might have a reasonably set billing rate of roughly $429 (KRW 600,000) per hour. At 20 hours of drafting, an application would therefore cost about $8,579 (KRW 12 million). Yet, outside highly specialized areas such as pharmaceuticals, achieving such fee levels in Korea can be challenging.
The Strategic Value of In-House Patent Teams
Ultimately, these considerations highlight the pivotal role of corporate patent counsel. If in-house teams conduct inventor interviews, compile prior art research, and prepare a thorough factual record, outside counsel can operate more efficiently, reducing the need for extensive revisions. This streamlined process not only enables law firms to stay within a constrained budget but also boosts outcomes, giving in-house professionals a tangible incentive to excel.
If organizations recognize that such a collaborative framework yields better patent coverage and strategic positioning—while also controlling costs—then the contributions of in-house patent personnel become even more vital. AI is set to amplify these benefits, allowing companies to meet the demands of a competitive global patent landscape more effectively than ever.
Comments
Post a Comment