Benchmarking Patent Drafting from Inventor-Style Disclosures
Organizations: University of Cambridge · National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Department of Information Resources Management, School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Abstract
While recent large language models (LLMs) have achieved promising results on individual patent drafting tasks, they fundamentally fail to investigate the core challenge of real-world patent drafting: generating a complete and legally coherent patent application directly from early-stage invention materials. Prior work predominantly assumes later-stage, highly structured, or already legalistic inputs. However, real patenting workflows begin with informal, de-legalized disclosures authored by inventors. To bridge the gap, we introduce Dis2Pat, a disclosure-to-patent dataset that reflects realistic patenting workflows by requiring the generation of complete patent applications directly from inventor-style, de-legalized disclosures. Given the inherent difficulty of long-form, legally constrained patent drafting and the strong privacy requirements, we further propose a strong baseline named Patent-MAF. It is a multi-agent framework for locally deployable patent drafting. Benchmark results reveal that current LLMs exhibit limitations in patent drafting, while Patent-MAF provides a strong baseline that consistently outperforms evaluated open-source models and remains competitive with large closed-source models.
Figures & tables
| Dataset / Work | Size | Task | Input | Output |
| HUPD-DCG ( Jiang et al., 2025d ) | 10K | Claim generation | Specification | Claims |
| EPD ( Jiang et al., 2025a ) | 107K | Claim generation | Specification | Claims |
| Patent-CR ( Jiang et al., 2025b ) | 20K | Claim revision | Rejected application claims | Granted claims |
| PatentFormer ( Wang et al., 2024a ) | 13K | Specification generation | Claims + figure descriptions | Specification |
| PatentVision Yang et al. (2026) | 230K | Specification generation | Claims + figure | Specification |
| AutoSpec Shea and Yu (2025) | 1.3K | Specification generation | Claims | Specification |
| Metric | Original Patent | Disclosure |
| Corpus Statistics | ||
| # Tokens | 11207.4 | 1196.2 |
| # Title Tokens | 8.7 | – |
| # Abstract Tokens | 128.1 | – |
| # Claim Tokens | 1594.1 | – |
| # Specification Tokens | 9476.5 | – |
| Model / Setting | Text Overlap | Semantic Similarity | Content Quality | ||||||
| BLEU | R-1 | R-L | BERTScore | BERT-for-Patent | Completeness | Clarity | Style | Overall | |
| Text-Only | |||||||||
| Qwen3-32B | 0.8 | 28.8 | 12.1 | 81.5 | 94.4 | 82.8 | 81.0 | 72.9 | 78.9 |
| Qwen3-VL-32B | 0.7 | 30.3 | 12.3 | 82.0 | 94.6 | 83.3 | 85.9 | 73.7 | 81.0 |
| Qwen3-VL-72B | 1.6 | 32.2 | 12.9 | 81.6 | 94.5 | 84.2 | 83.5 | 75.7 | 81.1 |
| Llama-3.3-70B | 0.3 | 26.1 | 11.3 | 81.6 | 94.6 | 72.0 | 74.7 | 59.6 | 68.8 |
| Model / Setting | Text Overlap | Semantic Similarity | Content Quality | ||||||
| BLEU | R-1 | R-L | BERTScore | BERT-for-Patent | Scope | Clarity | Legality | Overall | |
| Text-Only | |||||||||
| Qwen3-32B | 13.5 | 48.0 | 25.3 | 83.2 | 94.5 | 82.8 | 81.2 | 78.6 | 80.9 |
| Qwen3-32B-FT | 19.1 | 54.3 | 30.4 | 87.3 | 96.1 | 83.6 | 85.2 | 81.2 | 84.4 |
| Qwen3-VL-32B | 10.8 | 48.6 | 24.1 | 82.3 | 93.9 | 82.7 | 79.5 | 74.6 | 78.9 |
| Qwen3-VL-72B | 13.5 | 51.3 | 26.3 | 84.3 | 94.5 | 83.5 | 81.1 | 77.4 | 80.7 |
| Task: Pseudo-Disclosure Generation |
| You will be given a patent title, claims, and full specification. Your task is to extract and rewrite the invention into a clear, human-readable disclosure using plain, non-legal English. Do not copy legal phrasing or claim-style language, and do not introduce any new technical information beyond the original patent. |
| Output Structure: |
| You must generate the disclosure using the following seven invention-centric sections: |
| 1. Title of the Invention (Layperson Version): Summarize the invention in one simple sentence. If the original title is technical or obscure, rewrite it into an easy-to-understand name. |
| 2. Why This Invention Is Needed (Problems in the Prior Art): Describe the limitations of existing technologies and explain why these problems matter, using simple and intuitive language. |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Text Overlap | Semantic Similarity | Content Quality | ||||||
| BLEU | R-1 | R-L | BERTScore | BERT-for-Patent | Completeness | Clarity | Style | Overall | |
| Baselines (Text-Only) | |||||||||
| Llama-3.2-90B-Vision | 0.5 | 27.3 | 11.8 | 81.5 | 94.5 | 68.7 | 73.6 | 58.1 | 66.8 |
| Baselines (Text+Image) | |||||||||
| Llama-3.2-90B-Vision | 0.6 | 27.7 | 12.1 | 81.8 | 94.6 | 68.9 | 73.9 | 58.6 | 67.1 |
| Ours (Based on Llama-3.2-90B-Vision) | |||||||||
| Instructions: |
| You will receive two patent specifications: (1) gold_spec : the gold-standard reference specification, and (2) candidate_spec : the specification to be evaluated. Your task is to evaluate how well the candidate specification matches the gold specification in terms of content coverage, logical clarity, and legal drafting quality. |
| You must assign a score from 0 to 100 for each evaluation dimension, where: 0 indicates extremely poor quality or entirely missing content, and 100 indicates excellent quality fully aligned with professional patent drafting standards. |
| Evaluation Criteria: |
| 1. Completeness (0–100) |
| Instructions: |
| You will receive two patent claim sets: (1) Gold Claims : the gold-standard reference claims, and (2) Candidate Claims : the claims to be evaluated. |
| Role: |
| You are a Senior Patent Examiner with experience in patent examination. |
| Objective: |
| Human Evaluation Task: Overall Patent Quality Ranking |
| Evaluation Objective: |
| You are asked to manually evaluate and compare multiple patent texts generated by different models. Each patent consists of two parts: a Specification and a set of Claims . An officially published or granted patent ( Gold Patent ) is provided as the upper-bound quality reference. Your goal is to compare two candidate patents against the Gold Patent and rank them by quality. |
| Input Materials: |
| Each evaluation sample includes: |
Language Model Generation Evaluation
Language model generation evaluation measures the quality, reliability, diversity, and task fit of outputs produced by language models.
See all 395 papers