AILOPLApr 20

Formally Verified Patent Analysis via Dependent Type Theory: Machine-Checkable Certificates from a Hybrid AI + Lean 4 Pipeline

arXiv:2604.1888232.3h-index: 6
Predicted impact top 89% in AI · last 90 daysOriginality Synthesis-oriented
AI Analysis

For patent analysts and legal professionals, this is the first framework applying interactive theorem proving to IP analysis, but it is incremental as it combines existing methods (ML and formal verification) without solving the core challenge of ML score accuracy.

The paper presents a hybrid AI + Lean 4 pipeline for patent analysis that provides machine-checkable certificates for tasks like freedom-to-operate and claim-construction sensitivity. The DAG-coverage core is fully verified, but higher-level theorems remain informal sketches, and guarantees are conditional on the ML layer's scores.

We present a formally verified framework for patent analysis as a hybrid AI + Lean 4 pipeline. The DAG-coverage core (Algorithm 1b) is fully machine-verified once bounded match scores are fixed. Freedom-to-operate, claim-construction sensitivity, cross-claim consistency, and doctrine-of-equivalents analyses are formalized at the specification level with kernel-checked candidate certificates. Existing patent-analysis approaches rely on manual expert analysis (slow, non-scalable) or ML/NLP methods (probabilistic, opaque, non-compositional). To our knowledge, this is the first framework that applies interactive theorem proving based on dependent type theory to intellectual property analysis. Claims are encoded as DAGs in Lean 4, match strengths as elements of a verified complete lattice, and confidence scores propagate through dependencies via proven-correct monotone functions. We formalize five IP use cases (patent-to-product mapping, freedom-to-operate, claim construction sensitivity, cross-claim consistency, doctrine of equivalents) via six algorithms. Structural lemmas, the coverage-core generator, and the closed-path identity coverage = W_cov are machine-verified in Lean 4. Higher-level theorems for the other use cases remain informal proof sketches, and their proof-generation functions are architecturally mitigated (untrusted generators whose outputs are kernel-checked and sorry-free axiom-audited). Guarantees are conditional on the ML layer: they certify mathematical correctness of computations downstream of ML scores, not the accuracy of the scores themselves. A case study on a synthetic memory-module claim demonstrates weighted coverage and construction-sensitivity analysis. Validation against adjudicated cases is future work.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes