An invention disclosure form that interviews you back. It surfaces the technical concept, flags what may be inventive, exposes missing facts and keeps the inventor's own language, so search, assessment and filing all start from the same structured evidence.
That is how most invention disclosures still arrive: a sentence and an attachment. Without a structured interview, the IP team spends hours reconstructing what the inventor already knew, and context leaks at every handoff after that: disclosure to search, search to assessment, assessment to drafting, drafting to filing.
Weak disclosure is the most expensive line item nobody measures.
Use this template, whether or not you use Gate IP.
Item 8 matters most. In many countries, including Europe, a public disclosure before filing can destroy novelty. File first, then present, publish or pitch.
Inventors don't all work the same way. Capture has to meet them where they are.
Comes back often, wants fast feedback and tests new ideas regularly. Met by a guided invention-capture chatbot: quick capture of new concepts, with follow-up questions a patent professional would ask.
Is heads-down in the lab and rarely makes contact. Met by controlled extraction from existing R&D records: an agent screens for inventive features and captures them from the existing records.
The front door can change from inventor to inventor. The foundation beneath it cannot: search, assessment and decision all run on the same structured evidence.
A modern IP function already owns 15+ specialist tools. What it lacks is the layer that connects them. When systems don't connect, people bridge them by hand, with copy-paste, email and meetings.
Engineering → guided disclosure → patentability search → strengthen → provisional and priority → your IP team or outside counsel → international prosecution
Why it pays: an IP lawyer costs roughly €250–750 per hour. Hours spent reviewing notes, identifying inventions and screening obvious risks are low-judgment assembly. Structure that work upstream, and put the evidence in front of the expensive expert.
A confidential record of what an invention is, how it works, what is new, who invented it and when. It is the input for deciding whether to search, file or keep the invention as a trade secret.
No. A disclosure is an internal record and does not give you a filing date. A priority date comes only from filing an application, such as a provisional application.
Ideally not. In many jurisdictions a public disclosure before filing can prevent a valid patent. File first, then present, publish or pitch.
AI can run the interview, structure the answers, keep the inventor's own language and expose missing facts. The technical substance comes from the inventors, and humans validate the facts.
Gate IP uses your disclosure to evaluate and run the workflow you requested. Your invention details are not published, and access is limited to the people and tools needed to process your case.
For strategy and international prosecution, yes. Gate IP automates evidence preparation, not accountability. Your counsel keeps the decisions that matter.
The fastest way to judge it is on one real invention: capture it, search it, and read the evidence package it produces.
Gate IP is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. Patentability, priority and filing decisions should be reviewed by appropriately qualified professionals.