The document contains no customer names, no passwords, and no financial information. It contains something potentially more valuable: the technical detail that makes an invention work.
Pasting that document into a free AI translator may send unpublished research outside the organization before anyone has checked the service’s confidentiality terms. The translation takes seconds. Establishing what happened to the submitted information can take considerably longer.
For an unpublished invention disclosure, the practical answer is to use only a translation environment approved for that level of confidentiality. A familiar interface, a private browser window, or an impressive translation does not establish that approval.
This does not mean every online submission becomes public or automatically destroys patent rights. It means the decision requires more than confidence in the output.
The sensitive information may be the smallest paragraph 🔐
An invention disclosure often combines background material with details that have never appeared in a publication: an unexpected process interaction, a successful formulation, or the particular arrangement that solved a persistent engineering problem.
Removing the company name does not necessarily remove the secret.
Consider three hypothetical documents:
| Document | Information that may remain sensitive after names are removed |
|---|---|
| Battery development report | The additive combination and processing sequence responsible for improved performance |
| Medical-device disclosure | The control logic that distinguishes the prototype from existing systems |
| Manufacturing trial summary | The operating window that avoids defects and makes production commercially viable |
Even unsuccessful experiments can matter. A record showing which approaches failed may save a competitor substantial development effort.
Before translation begins, the relevant question is therefore: What could a technically competent reader learn from this passage that is not already public?
That question is more useful than asking whether the file “looks confidential.”
What leaves the browser when you request a translation?
For a cloud-based translator, submitted text is transmitted to an external service for processing. Depending on the product and its terms, other systems or service providers may also participate.
Several issues need separate answers:
- Whether the content is used to train or improve models.
- Whether it is retained, and for how long.
- Whether authorized personnel can access it.
- Whether subcontractors process it.
- Where processing and storage occur.
- What deletion commitments and exceptions apply.
These are different questions. A promise not to train on customer content does not, by itself, establish zero retention, prohibit all human access, or specify a processing location.
Product boundaries also matter. A consumer website, business subscription, API, and third-party browser extension may operate under different terms—even when they appear to offer the same translation technology.
Do not transfer an assurance from one product to another without checking that it applies.
Patent offices have already identified the confidentiality problem
The USPTO’s guidance on AI tools, published in April 2024, specifically addresses confidentiality and national-security concerns. It warns practitioners to consider how AI services handle client information, including possible retention, use for training, and disclosure to third parties. It also identifies potential concerns where information is sent to systems outside the United States. These are issues to assess in the applicable circumstances, not a statement that every international transfer is prohibited. govinfo.gov
The relevance to translation is direct. A service does not need to draft claims or invent technical content to receive sensitive invention information. Translating a disclosure can transmit the same underlying material.
For businesses reviewing their AI policies in 2026, translation should therefore be included explicitly. A policy covering “AI drafting” may leave employees uncertain about a seemingly routine request to translate three paragraphs for an overseas colleague.
Does pasting the text destroy novelty?
Not automatically.
Patent novelty depends on the applicable law and whether the relevant information became available to the public before the relevant filing date. The EPO’s guidance distinguishes public availability from communication protected by an effective obligation of secrecy. Sending information to an outside recipient is not necessarily the same as publishing it. epo.org
But the opposite assumption is also unsafe: a document is not necessarily protected merely because it was submitted through an account rather than posted on an open website.
The service terms, access arrangements, confidentiality obligations, and actual circumstances matter. WIPO warns that public disclosure before filing can prevent patent protection, subject to the rules and any grace period available in the relevant jurisdiction. wipo.int
An organization discovering an accidental upload should establish the facts promptly. It should neither assume that the invention is lost nor dismiss the incident because the translation was visible only on one employee’s screen.
Trade secrets raise a separate question ⚠️
Some technical information may never be intended for a patent application. Process settings, manufacturing tolerances, and internal testing methods may instead be protected through secrecy.
WIPO explains that trade-secret protection generally depends on the information being secret, having commercial value because it is secret, and being subject to reasonable measures to preserve that secrecy. Confidentiality agreements and access restrictions are among the relevant measures. wipo.int
An uncontrolled upload can therefore create a problem even where no patent filing is planned. It may complicate the company’s ability to demonstrate how it protected the information.
The concern is not limited to model training. Unauthorized sharing may also conflict with obligations owed to a research partner, customer, university, or joint-development participant.
Owning a copy of a technical document does not necessarily mean having permission to disclose it to another service.
Four shortcuts that do not establish confidentiality
“I used private browsing.”
Private browsing primarily changes how browsing information is handled on the local device. It does not prevent a remote translation service from receiving the text submitted to it.
“I removed the inventor’s name.”
That may reduce personal identification, but the technical teaching can remain intact. A formulation or mechanism can be commercially valuable without a name attached.
“I deleted the translation afterward.”
Removing visible history does not necessarily establish that all server records, backups, or other retained copies have been erased. The applicable retention and deletion terms determine what that action achieves.
“We paid for the account.”
Payment alone does not establish suitability for unpublished inventions. The relevant protections must apply to the particular account, feature, and workflow being used.
The same scrutiny belongs in human translation procurement. A confidentiality agreement with a translator should be supported by clear instructions about subcontracting, external AI tools, file sharing, and retention.
What a controlled Korean translation assignment should include
For overseas companies sending invention disclosures to Korean patent counsel or technical teams, confidentiality arrangements should be settled before the complete file is transferred.
A useful brief identifies the document as unpublished, specifies its intended recipients, and states whether external machine translation is prohibited or permitted only through an approved environment.
It should also address the practical handling of the work:
| Control | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Access | Which translators, reviewers, and project personnel need the file |
| Technology | Which translation systems and AI features are permitted |
| Subcontracting | Whether further disclosure requires authorization |
| Retention | How working files and reusable language resources are handled |
| Delivery | Which approved channel will carry the completed translation |
| Incident reporting | Who must be notified if information is misdirected or uploaded improperly |
Translation memories deserve particular attention. These resources can retain source and target segments for reuse. Their use should be agreed for confidential projects rather than treated as an invisible administrative detail.
Our Korean-language patent translation work can be scoped around the client’s confidentiality requirements, technical terminology, and intended use. Those requirements should be documented alongside the delivery schedule, so urgency does not quietly change the agreed handling conditions.
If someone has already pasted the disclosure
Stop further submissions through that workflow and preserve the information needed to assess the incident.
Record the service, product tier, account, date, settings, and exact material submitted. Keep relevant policy versions or account records where available. Avoid copying the sensitive text into additional unapproved tools while investigating.
Notify the organization’s designated IP, legal, or security contact. They can determine whether deletion requests, provider clarification, contractual notifications, or patent-related action are appropriate.
A useful report states facts: what was sent, where it went, and what is known about access and retention. “The AI has published our invention” is not a justified conclusion without evidence.
Translate the disclosure without expanding its audience
Sometimes a terminology question can be answered using an already published reference or a genuinely nonconfidential example. That can reduce unnecessary disclosure during preliminary research.
For the invention itself, however, excessive redaction can make accurate translation impossible. Removing the feature relationships, operating conditions, or experimental context may conceal the very meaning that Korean readers need.
The better approach is an approved environment in which authorized specialists can examine the necessary context. Before sending the file, identify the people who need to understand it, the systems permitted to process it, and the conditions under which copies may remain after delivery.
Official background: WIPO’s guidance on patent disclosure and trade-secret protection (source: https://www.wipo.int); and the USPTO’s guidance on the use of AI tools in patent and trademark practice (source: https://www.uspto.gov).