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
UPC Agreement Is Not EU Law, No Referrals to CJEU
01 September 2025
expert v. Seoul Viosys, UPC_CoA_380/2025 Order of 20 August 2025 (ORD_22147/2025)[1] This order from the UPC Court of Appeal clearly states that the Court of Justice of the EU cannot be asked to...
#
Litigation
​
Unconventional Service: igus v. Whale Technology
29 August 2025
UPC_CFI_318/2025, decision of 5 August 2025 (ORD_34299/2025)[1] In a default judgment issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
#
Litigation
​
A Cloud of Uncertainty: Implications of G 1/23 for Software Companies
29 July 2025
On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its landmark decision in case G 1/23 (Solar Cell Sealing Materials and Solar Cell Module), a ruling that has...
#
Consulting
​
Flawed consultation on Standard Essential Patents launched by UK Government
29 July 2025
Earlier this month, the UK Government unveiled its latest consultation on Standard Essential Patents, proposing some "practical steps" which they are considering to "create a more balanced system"...
#
Litigation
​
UPC refuses extension of deadline for review of seizure order after refusal of service
22 July 2025
Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub Council Order of 14 July 2025 (ORD_26742/2025 [1]) This article follows up on the UPC...
#
Litigation
​
UPC grants ‘in absentia’ permanent injunction on agricultural tool
21 July 2025
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v Spiridonakis Bros GP (UPC_CFI_513/2024 relating to EP1998604) Order of 25 June 2025 (ORD_17812/2025 [1]) This Decision from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court...
#
Litigation
​
Applying Ocado, the UPC grants a R262 request to access CFI documents
09 July 2025
NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023) Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1] The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision...
#
Litigation
​
Unified Patent Court: The Impact of Brexit
26 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) now has jurisdiction over 18 of the 27 EU states and advertises itself as an EU court but is there any prospect of the UK getting involved in the Unified Patent Court...
#
Consulting
​
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
25 June 2025
UPC_CFI_58/2024 Following a decision, a successful party has one month to apply for a costs decision (Rule 151). In the relevant case, the main decision (dated 19 February 2025) stated that the...
#
Litigation
​
Provisional Injunction Denied for Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitor
19 June 2025
Zentiva Portugal, LDA v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH (UPC_CFI_41/2025 relating to EP1830843) Court of First Instance Order dated 8 May 2025 ORD_18599/2025 [1] Summary The Application for...
#
Litigation
​
Avoiding Added Matter Pitfalls: Mastering Amendments Before the EPO
17 June 2025
"Added matter" objections are a common and often frustrating hurdle in European patent prosecution. The European Patent Office (EPO) takes a particularly strict stance on claim amendments, especially...
#
Patenting
​
The UPC two years on: Withdrawals of actions becoming prominent
09 June 2025
The Unified Patent Court has now been running for two years. To mark the occasion, we have looked at the cases and the decisions over the past two years, and share our thoughts on the current state...
#
Litigation
​
INTA 2026 Essentials: Where to stay, what to see and what to do
03 June 2025
Discover the INTA 2026 Essentials! This comprehensive guide will help you navigate your stay, showcasing the best accommodations, must-see attractions, and exciting activities to enjoy during your visit.
#
Patenting
​
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
29 May 2025
A key question for those working in a fast-paced and complex industry such as quantum technology is when to patent any technological developments.
#
Consulting
​
AI and Bitstreams at the Core of China’s Patent Update
28 May 2025
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a draft amendment of the Patent Examination Guidelines (for public comment), proposing further revisions to...
#
Patenting
​