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
Is Your AI Conversation Privileged?
08 May 2026
Recent US court decisions have, for the first time, tested whether conversations with AI tools can be protected by legal privilege. In United States v. Heppner, a court held that documents generated by a defendant using a public AI platform were not protected by attorney‑client privilege, largely because the AI was not used within a lawyer‑directed relationship and the platform’s terms allowed data retention and disclosure. By contrast, in Warner v. Gilbarco, another court found that AI‑assisted materials created by a self‑represented litigant were protected under the work‑product doctrine, which has a more forgiving standard for waiver.
#
Consulting
​
The evolution of nucleic acid sequencing and what it means for Genomics and IP
27 April 2026
This article outlines the evolution of nucleic acid sequencing, from early Sanger methods to next‑generation and long‑read technologies. The journey from deciphering individual DNA strands to sequencing entire genomes in hours represents one of biotechnology's most impressive transformations. The first human genome, completed through the Human Genome Project, took around 13 years to sequence and cost billions of dollars, whereas modern sequencing methods can now deliver a genome in hours for a few hundred dollars. For those interested in patents and life sciences, understanding the technical evolution of sequencing methods offers insights into how fundamental scientific advances translate into valuable patent portfolios.
#
Consulting
​
World IP Day: The big ideas shaping IP's fastest-moving fields
24 April 2026
For World IP Day, we asked experts of EIP’s five growth areas: Uniphy, Ampliphy, Stratiphy, Codiphy and Quantiphy, to share a quick insight on innovation, IP trends, and what excites them about the future. Each responded to a single, focused question reflecting the role their team plays across EIP.
#
Consulting
​
Meet the EIP team heading to INTA 2026 in London
23 April 2026
INTA's Annual Meeting is coming to London. From 2–6 May 2026, the ExCeL will host more than 10,000 trade mark and IP professionals from over 100 jurisdictions — five days of sessions, side events, and the kind of corridor conversations that turn into lasting working relationships.
#
Litigation
​
Antibody Patent Protection in Europe and the US: Navigating EPO and USPTO Differences
16 April 2026
This article explores the complexities of patenting antibody therapies, focusing on the differing requirements and practices of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It highlights how the scope of claims, inventiveness standards, and supporting data requirements vary between jurisdictions, and explains why a tailored IP strategy is essential for innovators especially SMEs seeking protection in both Europe and the US. The article also outlines how EIP’s transatlantic teams collaborate to optimise patent applications for success in these key markets.
#
Patenting
​
Why competitor patent monitoring is critical to your drug development strategy
15 April 2026
This article explains why competitor IP monitoring is a critical part of an effective drug development strategy. By tracking competitor patent activity, companies can assess freedom to operate, identify risks and opportunities early, and make informed decisions on patent filings, licensing, and investment readiness. Ongoing monitoring also supports FTO analysis, third‑party observations, oppositions, and litigation strategy, helping life sciences businesses protect value and reduce risk throughout development.
#
Consulting
​
Biopharma Strategy in 2026: Lessons from 2025 on AI, M&A and the UPC
13 April 2026
This article looks back on a selection of key trends in the (bio)pharma industry in 2025 and looks ahead to how these may continue to develop into 2026.
#
Consulting
​
Thinking about IP from day one: strategic considerations for deep tech startups
08 April 2026
For deep tech startups, intellectual property decisions often come too late or cost too much too soon. This article explores why IP strategy should be considered from day one, even if formal protection comes later. It outlines how founders can decide what to patent, when trade secrets may be more appropriate, and how detectability, enforceability and cost should shape early choices. With a focus on practicality and commercial alignment, it also looks at how newer, AI‑assisted approaches can help startups take a more cost‑effective and flexible approach to building meaningful IP protection.
#
Consulting
​
National offices report increases in national patent applications throughout Europe: Is the EPO no longer “killing” the national offices?
27 March 2026
National patent offices across Europe have reported a marked increase in patent filings in 2025, breaking with a long‑standing downward trend. Data from Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Spain and Norway point to growing activity driven by digital technologies, electrification and increased university participation. At the same time, offices report a rise in self‑drafted and AI‑assisted applications, which may lower barriers to entry but also raise concerns about application quality and examination efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Make your bio(pharma) IP investment ready
22 March 2026
This recap of our LinkedIn Live series focuses on helping (bio)pharma businesses make their IP investment‑ready. Across three sessions, experts will discuss building resilient IP portfolios, making strategic IP decisions ahead of funding rounds, and what the evolving 2026 (bio)pharma landscape means for long‑term IP strategy.
#
Patenting
​
Are professional guidelines making Patent Attorneys too cautious on AI?
19 February 2026
As AI use accelerates in patent practice, many European patent attorneys remain cautious due to professional AI guidelines from the epi. This article argues those guidelines are not a barrier, but a baseline for responsible use.
#
Patenting
​
Provisional Agreement Reached on the EU Pharma Package: Takeaways for Pharmaceutical Companies
17 February 2026
The EU’s new Pharma Package will overhaul regulatory exclusivity, orphan drug incentives, antimicrobial innovation, and generic entry pathways, reducing standard protection periods while introducing new rewards like transferable exclusivity vouchers.
#
Patenting
​
Beyond CRISPR: Precision to Platform
23 January 2026
Gene editing is entering a new phase, moving beyond CRISPR-Cas9’s breakthrough but costly, bespoke therapies toward more precise and scalable platforms. While CRISPR-based treatments like Casgevy have proven clinical success, they remain expensive and entangled in ongoing patent disputes over foundational IP. Next-generation tools such as base editing and prime editing avoid double-strand DNA breaks, enabling more accurate corrections and broader therapeutic potential. The field’s focus is now shifting to disease-agnostic platforms that can be adapted across many conditions, improving access and efficiency.
#
Patenting
​
Confidentiality at the UPC: What litigants need to know
21 January 2026
This article explains how the Unified Patent Court approaches confidentiality in litigation, outlining the procedures for restricting access to sensitive information, how confidentiality clubs are formed, and when hearings may be held in private. It highlights key case law shaping these rules, the balance between fair trial rights and protection of commercial data, and the penalties for breaches. Practical guidance is provided to help parties navigate applications, manage confidential documents, and understand what to expect throughout UPC proceedings.
#
Litigation
​
EPO fees are going up in April 2026: Plan ahead now
19 January 2026
The European Patent Office will introduce a fee increase of roughly 5% from 1 April 2026, affecting search, examination, designation and renewal fees. Filing, excess page, opposition and appeal fees remain unchanged. Some costs—such as renewal fees—can be paid up to three months early, allowing applicants to secure the current lower rates. EIP recommends reviewing your portfolio ahead of the deadline.
#
Patenting
​