AIIPO
Knowledge Hub.
Platform guides, IP lifecycle FAQs, patenting glossaries, and enterprise resources for intellectual property leaders.
AIIPO is custom-built specifically for intellectual property workflows. Unlike general LLMs, AIIPO is trained on domain-specific patent corpora, USPTO/EPO claim formatting standards, and patent classification taxonomies. It maintains strict data isolation and zero model training on client inputs.
Yes. Every client operates in an isolated tenant with encryption at rest and in transit. Your invention disclosures, drafts, and portfolio data are never shared across tenants, never sold, and never used to train public or shared AI models. Role-based access controls and full audit trails govern every interaction with your data.
AIIPO generates filing-ready output packages including specifications and claims in DOCX and PDF, formal drawings as vector files (SVG/PDF) compliant with USPTO and EPO figure standards, and structured data exports (XML/JSON) compatible with common docketing and e-filing systems. All exports are formatted for direct attorney review.
AIIPO continuously monitors and formats for the USPTO, EPO, and WIPO/PCT systems, with coverage of major Asian offices including CNIPA (China), JPO (Japan), and KIPO (Korea). Its language models read Chinese, Japanese, and Korean filings natively — no translation delay, no missed prior art.
No. AIIPO accelerates and structures the work that precedes and surrounds attorney review — search, drafting, drawings, formatting, and portfolio intelligence. All AI-generated outputs are clearly marked as requiring review by qualified patent counsel before filing. AIIPO makes counsel faster and better-informed; it does not replace professional legal judgment.
IP Radar runs a continuous five-stage cycle — Scan, Classify, Analyze, Prioritize, Notify. It monitors global patent databases around the clock, classifies new filings by domain and assignee, maps them against your product roadmap and portfolio, ranks signals by strategic impact, and delivers structured alerts to the relevant counsel and teams.
A prior art search asks: is my invention new and non-obvious enough to be patented? It looks backward at everything published before your filing date. A Freedom to Operate analysis asks a different question: can I make, use, and sell my product without infringing someone else's in-force patent claims? It looks at currently enforceable patents in your target markets. An invention can be patentable yet still lack freedom to operate — and vice versa.
Prior art is any evidence that your invention was already known before your effective filing date. It includes granted patents and published applications in any country and language, academic papers, product manuals, public demonstrations, sales offers, and even your own earlier disclosures. Because prior art is global and language-independent, foreign-language filings — particularly from China, Japan, and Korea — are among the most commonly missed categories.
Patent claims form a hierarchy: independent claims define an invention in its broadest enforceable form, while dependent claims add limitations that narrow scope but increase resilience. If an independent claim is invalidated by prior art, well-structured dependent claims can survive and preserve protection. Getting this hierarchy right — breadth at the top, defensible fallback positions below — is one of the most consequential drafting decisions in prosecution.
A provisional application secures an early filing date at lower cost and without formal claims, giving you 12 months to refine the invention and file the non-provisional. It suits fast-moving R&D where priority date matters most. A non-provisional application starts substantive examination and is required for a patent to actually grant. Many enterprises file provisionals early and often, then consolidate into non-provisionals strategically.
Granted patents require periodic maintenance (annuity) fees in every jurisdiction where they are in force — on different schedules, in different currencies, through different systems. Administrative oversight, not strategic choice, is the leading cause of unintentional lapse. Automated annuity tracking and renewal alerts exist precisely to prevent valuable protection from expiring through a missed deadline.