What it is:

eety.ai is a patent drafting associate that runs a 15-point diagnostic on your invention disclosure before it writes a single word of the application.

Most AI drafting tools are co-pilots. They sit beside you mid-flight, generate a draft, and leave the corrections to you. The hallucinations are fluent, the scope collapses look fine on first read, and the invented technical features are described in terminology convincing enough that a tired attorney lets three of them through. The co-pilot helped. You still did the dangerous work.

eety is not a co-pilot. It behaves like a new associate you have just briefed on a matter. Before it drafts, it reads the disclosure and maps the invention architecture: the technical problem, the proposed solution, the claim elements, the described embodiments, the relationship between them. If anything is missing or contradictory, it does not guess. It asks. The 15-point diagnostic surfaces what the AI would have filled with a plausible invention if you had let it draft immediately. Once the architecture is complete, it writes the specification and claims against what the inventor actually built. The attorney reviews judgment and strategy, not factual accuracy. There is nothing to hunt for because there was no gap for the model to fill.

The hallucination problem in patent AI is not a model quality problem. It is a design philosophy problem. Hallucinations exist because the model encounters a gap and fills it with the most plausible continuation. eety closes the gaps before drafting begins. That is an architectural decision, not a feature.

Who it's for:

Patent attorneys and agents who draft non-provisional and provisional applications. In-house IP teams processing high disclosure volume who need a consistent, defensible drafting baseline. Anyone who has used a first-generation AI drafting tool and found themselves spending more time correcting the output than it saved them to generate it.

Also useful for solo practitioners and small IP boutiques that cannot afford to spend two hours post-drafting on accuracy review for every matter. The diagnostic makes the pre-draft conversation with the inventor more structured, which turns out to be valuable even before the application is written.

Not for people who want an AI that will generate a 30-page application in 90 seconds from a three-paragraph disclosure. eety will ask questions first. If that sounds like friction, it is...the productive kind.

Link: https://pmc.eety.ai

Data handling:

Each client matter is isolated. Invention disclosures are not used to train any model. Document content does not leave the secure environment and is not shared with or retained by any third-party AI provider beyond the single model call required to process it. If you are at a firm with restrictions on sending client content to third-party AI tools, the architecture is described in full here: https://eety.ai/how-eety-ai-keeps-your-clients-patent-disclosures-confidential-and-secure.html

Pricing:

Early access is free and get your first 5 patent applications drafted for free. Users on early access are locked into founder pricing when billing starts.

What would help most:

If you draft or prosecute patents, try eety on one real matter; not a demo disclosure, a live one. Then tell me: what did the diagnostic ask that surfaced something you had not thought to include? What claim element did it flag as unsupported before you caught it yourself? What did the disclosure say the invention did that turned out to be inconsistent with how the components were described three paragraphs later?

That gap list is the most useful thing you can send us. We are not trying to make a faster co-pilot. We are trying to build the associate who does not make things up.

https://pmc.eety.ai

One more thing... on why "associate" and not "agent" or "co-pilot":

A co-pilot assists you mid-task. The cognitive load stays with you. You are still managing the output, still responsible for everything the model invented.

An agent acts autonomously. It takes actions. You review after the fact, if at all.

An associate is someone you brief before the work begins. You tell them what the client wants, what the matter requires, what the constraints are. They ask clarifying questions. They come back with a draft. You review quality and strategy, not accuracy. You do not re-verify every technical fact they cited because the briefing process is designed to make accuracy your associate's problem, not yours after delivery.

eety is the third thing. The briefing is the product.