Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.

​
July 31, 2026

How long is a piece of string? Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.

Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI - energy tabs

Tap a stage to expand

5 hours of manual drafting time at typical laptop and monitor power draw, about 56g of Dairy Milk chocolate.

A typical patent draft runs to about a million tokens once every drafting and refining pass is counted.

A 2023 estimate of energy use per token for older hardware. Newer chips are far more efficient: Nvidia says inference efficiency per megawatt improved a millionfold between 2012 and 2026.

Worst case, AI drafting uses a little less energy than the manual process it replaces. Best case, up to 6 times less. That's 9 to 45g of chocolate.

Microsoft research (journal Joule, April 2026) suggests real-world AI inference may already be 4 to 20 times more efficient than public estimates assume.

“

A clear answer is basically impossible unless and until we switch to local models to measure at wall power consumption.

Laurence Brown, Head of Visser AI

The energy savings of AI - assisted patent drafting

I started with a basic observation from my own work.  If AI is used to assist patent application drafting, it takes less attorney time, something we pass on in savings with our Visser AI work.  I can easily quantify the IT energy saved.  How does that compare to the energy used by the AI system in its work?

Starting with the easy bit, from my experience, AI assisted patent drafting can save at least 5 hours.  It may well be more, but this shorter time makes it harder for the AI to justify itself.  Typical at wall power for a docking monitor with my laptop attached and drawing power from the monitor is about 70W.  Patent drafting work really benefits from a bigger screen, and I am nerdy enough that I’ve measured this! So, 5 hours of work is 350 Wh, or around 1,260 kJ.

That number can be hard to visualise. You may be surprised to know it’s as much energy as there is in 56g of Cadbury Dairy Milk. IT uses a lot of energy!

How much energy does patent drafting AI use?

The AI energy usage side of the equation is not as simple.  As many readers will know, AI uses tokens, both input and output to do its work.  The number of tokens depends on the context you give the AI to work with in the first place (e.g. the invention disclosure and related documents) and the overall length of the output.  Here I’m going to estimate 1,000,000 tokens for my example patent draft. It sounds a lot, when a consensus is that one English word is about 1.4 tokens.  This estimate is based on the reality of the AI patent drafting process with use in Visser AI.  That includes iterations with AI checking and refining multiple aspects to review and strengthen the draft in ways not previously possible within an acceptable time frame. Those iterations rapidly increase the number of tokens.

Estimating energy consumption per token

Next, we need the energy per token, which is harder to find than I expected.  It’s also a fast-moving target as hardware is evolving so rapidly in terms of energy efficiency.  In its blog post in March 2026, Nvidia highlighted how inference throughput per MW has improved by 1,000,000 times  in the six hardware generations from 2012 to 2026.  But trying to pin down an energy use per token is a challenge.  A widely cited paper from 2023 presented the energy use as around 4 J per token . That testing used Volta and Ampere GPUs, while the latest Blackwell and Rubin architectures are around 1000x more efficient at a hardware level according to that Nvidia blog.

Comparing AI energy use with traditional patent drafting

Pulling all this together, we get around 4,000 kJ assuming the models run on older Nvidia hardware, and 4 kJ if the 1,000x hardware efficiency of newer generations is fully realized (probably not realistic).  Recent Microsoft research published in Joule (April 2026) suggests that the whole “energy per token” approach is too simplified and “Frontier-scale inference” at the query level is perhaps 4-20x lower than public estimates .

So, with that 4J/token as the “public estimate” we end up with an AI energy usage of between 200 and 1,000 kJ for our patent draft using that, or between 9g and 45g of Dairy Milk.  A clear answer is basically impossible unless and until we switch to local models to measure at wall power consumption.  In the worst case, the patent draft uses slightly less energy than is saved by not using the laptop, but it could also be as much as 6 times lower!  

Of course, I haven’t considered the energy used to build the laptop / AI data centre or other factors such as water usage and training energy consumption.  Converting to a CO2e would be interesting too, but that varies by time of day with grid generation mixes.  But this gives us a point of comparison between two very different workflows.

Is patent AI more sustainable than you think?

To conclude, AI usage for patent drafting probably doesn’t use as much energy as you thought and is already likely using less energy than a non AI-assisted draft. Economic incentives will only reduce energy consumption over time, and the gains for AI hardware are much faster than that for relatively mature general computing hardware.  Or perhaps the drafting attorney could just cut down on their chocolate consumption to offset the use of AI.

Author: Laurence Brown - Head of Visser AI, Partner, UK & European Patent Attorney

The Latest Thought Leadership pieces in the Content Hub

No items found.
Stay in the Know

The Patent Strategist

Get expert insights and the top patent stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Heading
This is some text inside of a div block.
This is some text inside of a div block.

Latest Insights

Showing 0 of 100
Quantum IP Strategy: Own control Points, Not Patent Counts
14 October 2026
In quantum, the strongest portfolios will not be the biggest. Stuart Malcolm sets out six moves for owning the control points the market cannot route around, and the questions investors will ask.
#
Consulting
​
Targeted, Not Transformative: The UKIPO’s Considered Course on SEPs
13 October 2026
Andrew Sharples analyses the UKIPO's response to its SEP consultation, exploring proposed changes to FRAND dispute resolution, SEP transparency and licensing guidance, and what they mean for SEP holders and implementers.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese Companies in European Patent Litigation
30 September 2026
Chinese companies are becoming increasingly active in European patent litigation, both as defendants and as patent owners enforcing their own rights. This article examines the growing role of Europe and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in global patent disputes, highlighting key cases involving Chinese businesses and the strategic opportunities and risks that come with operating in European markets. It is the first in a series exploring the practical implications of European patent enforcement for Chinese companies.
#
Patenting
​
How to mitigate prior art traps for follow-on pharma patents
27 August 2026
Follow-on patents are increasingly important for pharmaceutical innovators. Learn how new EMA clinical trial disclosure rules create prior art risks and discover practical strategies to protect pharmaceutical IP and maximise patent value.
#
Consulting
​
Chinese companies and the UPC: from enforcement targets to strategic users
13 August 2026
Chinese companies are playing an increasingly significant role in UPC litigation, accounting for around 38% of infringement actions in 2025. While many remain defendants, a growing number are actively using the Unified Patent Court to enforce their own patent rights across Europe. The trend highlights the UPC's rising importance for Chinese businesses operating in sectors such as telecommunications, semiconductors, medical devices and renewable energy, and signals a shift in global patent enforcement strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Evaluating the environmental impact of patent AI.
31 July 2026
AI's environmental impact is rarely out of the headlines, but how does it compare to the benefits it delivers in practice? In this article, Laurence Brown examines the energy use of AI-assisted patent drafting, comparing it with traditional drafting workflows. While measuring AI's true environmental footprint is far from straightforward, the analysis suggests that AI-assisted patent drafting may already be more energy efficient, while delivering significant productivity gains for patent professionals.
#
Patenting
​
UPC appeals after three years: Early indications on appeal success rates
15 July 2026
Three years into the UPC, appeal overturn rates sit at 56% for both substantive and preliminary injunction cases, with Kodak v Fujifilm among the rulings reshaping outcomes on appeal.
#
Litigation
​
The UPC After Three Years: From Experiment to Enforcement Forum
15 July 2026
1,282 cases filed at the UPC in three years: infringement actions have surged while revocation filings stayed flat, easing fears the Court would become a European patent graveyard.
#
Litigation
​
Podcast: Building an AI-Native Law Firm
26 June 2026
On the Technically Legal podcast, EIP partner Laurence Brown discusses how Visser AI is redesigning patent workflows, letting the firm offer fixed fees without trading away speed or quality.
#
Patenting
​
Choosing your SEP battleground: UPC, Germany or UK?
07 June 2026
Choosing the right venue for SEP litigation can significantly influence the outcome of FRAND disputes. This article compares the UPC, German and UK courts, examining their approaches to injunctions, FRAND defences, rate-setting and enforcement. It highlights the strategic advantages of each jurisdiction and explains why many SEP owners are increasingly turning to the UK and UPC as part of their European enforcement strategy.
#
Litigation
​
Synthetic Lethality & AI: IP Strategy in Oncology
26 May 2026
This article explores the resurgence of synthetic lethality in precision oncology, highlighting how AI and machine learning are accelerating the discovery of new therapeutic targets. It also examines growing clinical activity, investment, and the evolving intellectual property challenges shaping this emerging field.
#
Consulting
​
Inside the Visser AI Launch Party
20 May 2026
EIP has officially launched Visser AI®, our hybrid intelligence service for patent drafting and prosecution. Watch the launch film from our event at The Boundary in Shoreditch, and discover how our team of European and US patent attorneys — working with the Patently AI platform , delivers faster, lower-cost work at the EPO, USPTO and beyond.
#
Consulting
​
Protecting Your Startup: Five Intellectual Property Mistakes to Avoid
20 May 2026
Early‑stage startups often focus on product development and fundraising, but overlooking intellectual property (IP) can seriously damage long‑term value. This article explores five common IP mistakes startups make, with a particular focus on patents. It covers the risks of filing patents without professional advice, making public disclosures too early, failing to put enforceable contracts in place with third parties, misunderstanding what patent rights actually provide, and neglecting to develop a clear IP strategy. By highlighting these pitfalls and offering practical guidance, the article helps startups protect their innovations, strengthen their commercial position, and improve their prospects with investors.
#
Consulting
​
Technology, Patents, and Sport
13 May 2026
VAR, goal-line tech, AI 3D player avatars, wearable trackers, the technology reshaping the 2026 World Cup and elite sport rests on a patent system that makes the R&D investment behind it worth taking.
#
Patenting
​
Patents or Trade Secrets? When to Patent in Deep Tech Innovation
11 May 2026
Deep tech companies face unique IP challenges due to long development cycles, high upfront investment, and complex technologies that combine products and processes. This article explores when patents, trade secrets, or a combination of both offer the strongest protection. It explains how factors such as detectability, reverse engineering risk, disclosure to third parties, and employee mobility should shape IP strategy decisions. While patents are often best suited to externally visible or licensable technologies, trade secrets can be highly effective for internal processes and know‑how that deliver performance or cost advantages.
#
Patenting
​