Patent law, particularly the preparation and prosecution of patents, stands on the brink of a seismic shift. Automation and AI technologies are changing the historical profit centers for patent attorneys—especially in generating the content for patent documents. While patent attorneys provide significant value to their clients through strategy, counseling, and the prosecution of patent applications, the bulk of revenue has traditionally come from drafting these applications. This process requires a great deal of human effort and expertise, with each application historically taking anywhere from 20 to 30 hours of concentrated attorney time.
The rise of generative AI, however, is transforming how these documents are created. Instead of requiring dozens of hours, the drafting process can now be completed with far fewer hours of attorney oversight and review, vastly increasing efficiency. This rapid change has stirred debate in the patent law community, raising both excitement and anxiety.
On one side, some fear that critical skills may be lost if drafting is fully or even partially automated. For new attorneys, drafting patent applications is not just about content generation—it's about learning the fundamentals of claim drafting, specification crafting, and the art of careful language to ensure protection. Automating the drafting process could rob junior attorneys of valuable learning experiences, leaving a competency gap. For seasoned practitioners, there are concerns that over-reliance on automation could degrade the quality of patents, as algorithms might produce more generalized or formulaic content that lacks the nuance and creativity traditionally brought by a human attorney.
Nonetheless, the trend toward automation is not unique to patent law. Looking at similar shifts in other professional services industries can provide valuable insights into what the future may hold. Let’s take a look at architecture as a case study.
The 1990s saw a similar transformation in the architecture industry, as computer-aided design (CAD) software revolutionized how architects worked. Before CAD, architects painstakingly produced drawings by hand using pencils, paper, and drafting tools like eraser shields and T-squares. The process was time-consuming, and these manual drawings demanded a high degree of skill, artistry, and technical knowledge.
When CAD entered the scene, it didn’t just speed up the process—it changed the nature of architectural work. CAD could produce drawings far more quickly and accurately than manual drafting, enabling revisions to be made with just a few keystrokes instead of redoing entire pages by hand. New skills became necessary, such as reviewing and revising computer-generated drawings, while other skills, like hand-drawing techniques, became less relevant.
This transition also expanded the architectural market. Because CAD reduced the cost and time involved in creating drawings, architectural services became more accessible to a broader range of clients, including smaller businesses and individuals who could not previously afford custom designs. The architectural community had its concerns—would new architects lack fundamental drafting skills? Would they become overly dependent on software? Would the “art” of architecture be lost?
In retrospect, the answer to these questions was largely “no.” While some manual drafting techniques did become obsolete, the art that was lost did not meaningfully impact the quality or creativity of architectural work. Instead, architects could focus more on design concepts, creativity, and other higher-value services. Rather than diminishing the value of architects, CAD allowed them to deliver better and more accurate work at a faster pace and lower cost.
Patent law seems poised to follow a similar path. Here is what this transformation might look like in the patent world.
Much like architects moving away from labor-intensive drafting, patent attorneys will be able to reallocate their time from document creation to more strategic, client-centered work. The current 20-30 hours per application spent drafting can be significantly reduced with the aid of AI, freeing up time for tasks like conducting strategic IP counseling, analyzing patent portfolios, engaging with clients, and focusing on high-level legal strategy.
For clients, this means reduced costs and faster turnaround times for patent applications. Patent attorneys will also be able to handle more work, increasing their productivity and ability to serve more clients.
As with architecture, automation in patent law will shift the skillset required for attorneys. Instead of focusing on the granular aspects of drafting, attorneys will need to develop expertise in guiding, reviewing, and refining AI-generated content. Reviewing these drafts will require a strong understanding of patent law and claim strategy, as well as an ability to identify and correct any potential issues or areas where the AI may fall short.
For younger attorneys, training will need to adapt to this new reality. The focus will shift from purely drafting skills to learning how to critically evaluate AI-generated content, ensuring that the final product meets the required quality standards and strategic objectives. While the fear that essential skills may be lost is valid, the reality is that many of the most crucial skills in patent law—such as claim strategy, legal reasoning, and client communication—will remain just as important, if not more so.
Automation will likely make patent services more accessible to a wider market. With the cost and time required to draft patent applications reduced, businesses of all sizes will find it easier to afford comprehensive patent protection. This is especially significant for startups and small-to-medium enterprises that have historically been priced out of securing robust IP protection.
Just as CAD enabled smaller clients to access architectural services, AI will open up the world of patent law to a broader audience. This market expansion has the potential to increase overall demand for patent services, even as the cost per service decreases.
One of the significant benefits of automation is that it shifts the focus of work away from repetitive, lower-value tasks and toward higher-value strategic tasks. For patent attorneys, the ability to generate the bulk of a patent application using AI frees them from being bogged down in the minutiae of drafting. Instead, they can dedicate more time to shaping the legal strategy, ensuring that the application is drafted with foresight toward enforcement, licensing, or litigation.
This evolution will elevate the role of patent attorneys from content generators to strategic advisors. The quality of patents will not necessarily be compromised; in fact, having more time to focus on strategy might lead to stronger, more well-thought-out patent applications.
The most successful professional transitions occur when automation and human expertise complement each other. CAD didn’t replace architects—it enhanced their ability to create and iterate on their designs. Similarly, generative AI in patent law will not replace patent attorneys but will instead act as a powerful tool that enhances their efficiency and effectiveness.
AI can produce the first draft of a patent application, covering most of the formalities, standard language, and structural elements. The attorney’s role will be to bring in the deep understanding of legal nuances, technology-specific knowledge, and strategic thinking to refine and elevate the application beyond what the AI can achieve on its own.
The disruption of patent law by AI-driven automation is inevitable, but it is also an opportunity. While it is natural to fear that the “art” of drafting might be lost, the reality is that the value patent attorneys provide goes far beyond the mechanical act of drafting. The most critical elements of patent work—strategic counseling, legal interpretation, client communication, and claim strategy—will continue to rely on human expertise and judgment.
Just as the architecture industry thrived following the adoption of CAD, so too can the patent law industry flourish with the integration of generative AI. Instead of replacing attorneys, AI will retool them to work faster, smarter, and more strategically. And rather than diminishing the value of patents, this evolution stands to enhance the quality, accessibility, and strategic value of patent protection.
The future of patent law will require adaptability and a willingness to embrace these new technologies as allies, not threats. Attorneys who learn to effectively leverage AI for drafting will not only improve their efficiency but will also open up new avenues for creative legal strategies and client services. In the end, the art of patent law will endure—but it will be an art that focuses on the substance of legal protection, not the mechanical aspects of content generation.
