International Patent Comparator
The same invention, described differently across jurisdictions. The module confronts the versions and shows where the scope diverges.
BIPPO System — proprietary IPmorrow technology
Two documents can say the same thing. Or almost.
That almost is where a patent is lost, an undue registration is granted, or you find out too late that the evidence was altered. The BIPPO System exists to find the discrepancy before it becomes a loss.
Assisted comparison — illustrative example
Document A
sealing element arranged on the inner face
with a thickness between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm
coupled to the body by mechanical interference
Document B
sealing element arranged on the inner face
with a thickness between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm
coupled to the body by structural adhesive
discrepancy
A single differing line between two versions of the same document can change the entire scope of protection. Finding that line by hand, across thousands of pages and several languages, is the bottleneck BIPPO attacks.
The problem
Intellectual Property runs on documents — and documents can diverge.
The same invention is described differently in different countries. A filed version is not identical to the published one. Prior art exists, but in another language, another database, another classification. And a document may simply have been altered.
None of this is exceptional. It is the daily reality of patent and trademark work. What did not exist was a method able to compare, map and classify those discrepancies systematically — and that is what IPmorrow built.
6
IPmorrow patent applications filed with the INPI
BIPPO System. Technical content and procedural data kept confidential.
Architecture
Six modules, six distinct problems
Each BIPPO module solves a specific commercial problem. What follows is what each one solves — not how it works.
Collaborative Intelligence and Proof of Authorship
Who contributed what, and when. Establishes the authorship record before it is challenged — not after.
Executive Translator
Technical and legal documents turned into decision-grade language. For those who must approve the investment without being claim-drafting specialists.
Sector Opportunity Map
Where there is still room to protect. Identifies gaps by sector before a competitor fills them.
Digital Audit Seal
Verification becomes a verifiable attestation. Directly useful in due diligence, licensing and fundraising.
Originality Alarm
Flags when something presented as new already exists. Avoids filings born condemned to nullity.
Public context
Why this stopped being hypothetical
COPA v. Wright — United Kingdom
A British High Court judgment that found large-scale documentary tampering in an authorship dispute. Documents, when they are the evidence, are also the target.
Read the judgment (judiciary.uk)USPTO — Patent Fraud Mitigation
The US office began publicly reporting applications blocked and terminated over signs of documentary fraud. A dedicated unit, with open data.
View the USPTO pageBrazil
The INPI has no equivalent public unit publishing open data on documentary fraud. Absence of data is not absence of the problem — it is absence of measurement.
There is also a structural question rarely raised: patent databases hosted on cloud infrastructure owned by large technology companies — which are also the world's largest filers. This is not an accusation of bad faith. It is a structural conflict of interest that deserves to be named.
Analysis
Trademark, work and proof: the gap in Brazil's music registry
Why sound marks do not solve the sampling problem, which instrument does, and the conflict analysis between trademarks and copyrighted works that Art. 124, XVII requires — and that no patent office is able to perform.
Why IPmorrow was born
“The Intellectual Property of tomorrow needs proof.”
The name is no accident. Intellectual Property has always been a decades-long game — a filing took years, innovation was rare, and a single agent could follow every case personally. That world is changing too fast to keep relying on the same manual methods alone.
Artificial intelligence has accelerated the pace of innovation — and, with it, the volume of patent filings is set to grow far beyond what today's system was designed to process. When creation accelerates faster than the human capacity to check what already exists, the risk of overlap, rework and disputes over what was already protected grows with it.
That is the scenario that gave rise to IPmorrow: the thesis that tomorrow's Intellectual Property needs a layer of verification that does not rest on trust alone — it needs proof. The BIPPO System was born from that thesis.
There is a second factor as well: increasingly, the databases that hold these patents are hosted on the cloud infrastructure of a handful of major technology companies — the same companies that also compete to file their own patents. This does not imply bad faith on anyone's part. But it does mean that blindly trusting the integrity of these records, without an independent means of verification, is a bet no one should have to make.
About
IPmorrow and RMIP
IPmorrow is the technology company. It owns the BIPPO System and the corresponding patent applications.
RMIP is the professional practice: Industrial Property filing and consulting — trademarks, patents, industrial designs, copyright and legal counsel for third parties.
Both are led by Rodrigo Monteiro, Industrial Property Agent registered with the Brazilian INPI under no. 2249, practising since 1996, and a certified expert through ABAPISUL.
Have a document that needs checking?
Describe the case. The answer comes from someone who has done this for nearly thirty years.
Send a message