patent drafting teams

Abstract: Securing patent protection across countries requires drafting claims separately for each national patent office, in the relevant language and according to its legal and stylistic conventions. Patent claims can therefore differ across languages and jurisdictions because of translation, target-office drafting practices, and prosecution-stage changes. We formulate cross-lingual patent drafting as generating plausible candidate claim sets for a specified target language, jurisdiction, and prosecution stage from a source claim set in another language. The task models jurisdiction- and stage-specific transformations beyond content-preserving translation. We construct a large-scale Japanese-English dataset by linking Japan Patent Office (JPO) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records through 884,179 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)-derived patent families. Across six released configurations, these families yield 4,067,168 directional claim-set instances; four core configurations form the main benchmark. Commercial machine translation and zero- and few-shot prompting capture part of the task, while supervised adaptation provides the strongest overall baseline, showing that task-specific patterns can be learned from linked cross-jurisdictional claim sets.

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation is widely used in professional writing, yet whether retrieval grounds revision or merely injects templates is rarely tested where "correct" has a definable meaning. Patent claim amendment supplies that signal: the examiner names the attacked limitation and cites prior art, providing per-case ground truth. We release three artifacts: (i) a corpus of 7,385 USPTO prosecution cases with XML-aligned pre/post claims, rejection, and cited prior art; (ii) a seven-probe battery comparing random and structural-match retrieval as two policies under a fixed prompt scaffold; (iii) a deterministic five-channel metric (C1-C3 and C5 in main, C4 supplementary) requiring no LLM evaluation. Across 9,600 pre-registered calls on four frontier LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4, Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-5.4, GPT-4o-mini), no tested model exhibits detectable classical prior-injection behavior; retrieval effects are small and direction-inconsistent between random and structural retrieval, and the null is unchanged under a dense (semantic) retriever, across retrieval depths k in {1,3,5,10}, and under a paraphrase-sensitive grounding metric. Revision locality reveals a model-specific difference that the template channel misses. The four-cell taxonomy, which we treat as exploratory, leaves the prior-injector cell unoccupied.