Recent advances in language models as exemplified by OpenAI’s newest model GPT-3 may impact the methods practitioners use to draft claims for patent applications. GPT-3 may be able to provide practitioners with ready-made context consistent language that can greatly enlarge the scope of a patent claim. It may also be able to generate claims, generate specifications for claims, and translate “legalese” into understandable natural language. GPT-3 has been shown to have limitations when generating creative writing styles. However, these limitations may not be problematic when generating patent claims and specifications because those tasks are constrained by a unique set of rules, cannons, and language that have already been litigated.

If the use of GPT-3 becomes pervasive in the patent realm it may shift the balance of power envisioned in the patent system from the public to the inventor.  Specifically, GPT-3 may allow too many inventors to claim significantly more in their patent than they originally invented, thus inequitably enlarging their exclusive rights. Although patent doctrines such as enablement and specific utility may initially appear to be gatekeepers to limit the claims generated by Artificial Intelligence, US patent law may ultimately be forced to move from a peripheral claiming system to a more central claiming-based system. In addition to the impact on patent doctrine, Practitioners will have to think carefully about how to fulfill their professional obligations to “supervise” GPT-3 style technologies, especially in light of its tendency to generate biased content. Finally, if the technology is only available to private firms, it may further exacerbate the access to justice gap.