Patents, decisions, releases.
IPZilla release notes, relevant case law (EPO Boards of Appeal, USPTO precedentials, CJEU, INPI) and drafting-doctrine notes. Every entry links to the official source — we never paraphrase legal authority.
- ReleaseMay 5, 2026
IPZilla v1 is live — four engines in production
Four-axis quality score, outcome prediction calibrated against 2024 office statistics, drafter with deterministic rules + AI critic, and multi-jurisdiction Sentinel (EPO · USPTO · INPI · WIPO). Free Explorer tier available: 3 lifetime quality scores, no credit card.
- Office statsApr 15, 2026
2024 grant rates by office — the anchors behind our predictions
EPO 69% · USPTO 62% · INPI 74% · JPO 71% · CNIPA 55% · UKIPO 58%. These figures are the absolute reference for our outcome predictor: the delta-vs-base you see is measured against these official rates. Methodology: patents granted / applications reaching a final decision in 2024.
- DecisionMar 22, 2026
G 2/21 (EPO) — post-filing evidence of a technical effect, confirmed
The Enlarged Board confirms that an applicant may rely on post-filing evidence to support a technical effect, provided the application as filed rendered that effect plausible. Drafting consequence: the as-filed disclosure must already pose every potential technical effect — without proving each — to keep the door open. Plausibility remains the bar.
- DoctrineMar 8, 2026
Claim cascades: why grammatical dependence matters as much as declared dependence
A claim that declares 'the method of claim 1, comprising…' but never actually references 'claim 1' in its body is syntactically valid yet semantically broken — both EPO and USPTO will reject it as indefinite. In IPZilla, the deterministic validator checks both links before the AI critic runs.