Amplified vs Dennemeyer Octimine: how they compare in 2026
Amplified and Dennemeyer Octimine both rank patents by closeness of meaning to an invention description rather than by keyword, for prior art and freedom to operate searches. Amplified is stronger on what its terms promise about a searcher's inventions. They never use customer content to train general models and allow training for that customer only at its direction. They delete data within thirty days of a request and spell out what a breach notice must contain. Its ranking sorts results but never removes them, and it publishes a price from $500 a month. Octimine's counterweight is where it runs and who has used it. Its search servers sit in a German data center, and it documents an API for embedding search in a customer's own systems. Siemens, Harvard and the Swiss patent office were named as users when Dennemeyer bought it in 2018.
Which one fits
Choose Amplified if
- You will type unfiled inventions into the search. Amplified's terms never allow customer content to train general AI models, permit training customer specific models only at the customer's direction, and delete content from active systems within thirty days of termination or request.
- You need a search you can defend later. Amplified's AI sorts results but never excludes them, exposes keyword counts so you can see where the model misread your input, and exports a search history covering both AI and Boolean searching.
- You want to start without a sales call. Amplified publishes a price from $500 a month paid annually, with unlimited projects and unlimited free viewers, self serve signup and a trial, over more than 140 million records from 97 or more authorities.
Choose Dennemeyer Octimine if
- Your data must stay in Germany. Octimine states that its search engines and servers sit in a data center in Germany with restricted access and continuous vulnerability monitoring, and its German affiliate has an appointed data protection officer.
- You want to embed patent search in your own systems. Octimine documents an API that makes all platform features available for integration, and exports result lists as PDF reports or Excel files for Boolean tools and IP management software.
- You want an assistant that explains patents in plain language. Octimine's Octi summarizes, compares and answers questions about patents in your workspace, alongside monitoring profiles that alert on legal status changes and more than twenty patent indicators for landscape analytics.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
A search starts with a plain language description of an invention or a patent number, and the system sorts more than 140 million records against it in real time by conceptual similarity, in one of two published AI ranking modes. Relevance feedback is the core loop: results marked relevant are fed back so the system surfaces more like them, and machine learning can partly automate relevance review of new publications. Boolean search, proximity operators and field selection are supported as ways to steer the ranking, not as what is being bought; Amplified says its AI reads the patents so the user does not have to. Without the model, what remains is a patent database with a query box.
The product's founding and defining function is semantic similarity search across more than 165 million patents by machine-learning text models, which the vendor describes as entirely complementary to Boolean search rather than a wrapper on it; Octi's language-model review and the monitoring models sit alongside. Without the models, the Boolean layer, exports and workspace remain, which is not the product Dennemeyer bought in 2018 or sells today.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
The product returns records from a defined collection rather than generating text, so there is little room for fabrication in the usual sense. A published design commitment goes to defensibility: the AI sorts results but never excludes them, so a ranking error cannot silently remove art from a searcher's view. Keyword counts are shown so a user can spot where the model misread an input, and search history can be exported. The agreement acknowledges failure: section 19 says outputs may be inaccurate or incomplete, and section 14 says patent legal status is shown as received from authorities without warranty. No current, testable figure is published. Amplified's blog records a 2019 EPOPIC study reporting automated prior art results comparable to professional search across nearly 1.5 million patent search reports. That study is seven years old and has not been repeated for the current product. Clause 4.2(xxi) prohibits benchmarking or comparing the Service for publication without prior written consent.
Semantic search returns ranked patent documents a reader opens directly, Octi's summaries and comparisons are described as drawn from the patent documents in the workspace, and the vendor positions the tool as a double-check on Boolean results rather than a substitute for them. The product page claims a 70 percent increase in search quality, retrieval in 2.7 seconds and a patent summary from Octi in under five seconds, with no baseline, test set or method behind the quality figure. No accuracy, recall or ranking-quality measurement and no hallucination statement for Octi is published.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The AI sorts but never excludes, so the person decides what to stop reading rather than the model deciding what they never see. The working loop in the help center is driven by the searcher, who marks results relevant, flagged or hidden, iterates, and runs a final check with filters removed to catch anything missed. Keyword counts let the user spot the model's misunderstandings. The agreement requires supervision: clause 4.2(xix) prohibits using outputs in or as the basis for legal, medical, financial, safety critical or other regulated decisions without independent review by a qualified professional, and 4.2(xx) prohibits relying on outputs in place of the customer's own due diligence. No confidence signal is published, no threshold at which the system defers is stated, and nothing covers what happens when a search is later shown to have missed art.
The vendor states that users have control over the machine learning and the option to fine tune results, and that the combination of the human brain with the technology is what makes the difference. Search specialists use the tool to double check Boolean results. The workspace supports ratings, assessments, comments and visibility controls, and monitoring alerts are configured per profile. Nothing on the go.dennemeyer.com page or the product page sets a threshold at which Octi's output or a monitoring alert is acted on without a person, or a route back after a wrong summary beyond the reviewer's own assessment.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Amplified's home page carries a quotation praising the product with no name, role or organization. The blog records conference activity rather than deployments: an EPO keynote at Search Matters 2019, an EPOPIC 2019 presentation, an invitation to speak at LESI, and selection among five of ninety startups at NIKKEI's AI SUM. Those show standing in the field, not customer outcomes. Third party sources, including LOT Network, CB Insights, WIPO and a revenue database, report customers such as Ricoh, Unicharm, Mizkan Holdings and a European automaker, and more than fifty large enterprises in thirteen countries. None of that comes from the vendor, and no case study, named customer or dated deployment figure is published on any vendor page.
The 5 November 2018 acquisition release names Siemens, Deutsche Post, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property's ip-search, Harvard University, Fraunhofer and the Max Planck Institute as users, with no measured outcome. The product page quotes Dr. Frank Langlotz of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property on a lower risk of missing important documents, Dr. Christine Cirl, a partner at Eisenführ Speiser, on freedom to operate and prior art searches, Springer Professional on linking its literature to patents through the API, and the patent manager of VARTA AG, all without figures. The Top 9 reasons post states that patent professionals regularly report finding relevant patents missed by Boolean search, unattributed, and the product page's 70 percent search quality figure names no customer. No figure joins a named customer.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Clause 6.3 says Amplified will never use customer content to train general AI models, and allows customer specific models or classifiers only at the customer's direction and only to provide those features back to that customer. The content license is limited to its purpose and to the period of use, ending when content is deleted from active systems. Retention and deletion are specific under 6.5, 12.9 and 16: deletion from active systems within thirty days of termination or request, written confirmation on request, and thirty days to export. A mutual confidentiality clause in section 13 covers information reasonably understood to be confidential. Access control is contractual under 12.4, with personal credentials and an account administrator. Nothing addresses privilege or attorney work product, although projects hold invention disclosures and internal ideas. No model provider is named, so what any underlying provider may keep is not stated.
The product page states that search servers sit in a data center in Germany with restricted access and continuous vulnerability monitoring, that queries are encrypted in the user's browser and decrypted on those servers, and that each search is analyzed for a split second and then deleted. The workspace lets a customer control the visibility of assessments, and a search can disclose an unfiled invention. No customer agreement is published, so nothing binds a training position, and nothing addresses training use, how long workspace content, monitoring profiles or Octi prompts are kept, or third party model providers behind Octi. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, which bears on prior art and freedom to operate searches. The Octimine app's privacy policy and the group privacy policy name Dennemeyer Octimine GmbH and a data protection officer, but they govern personal data rather than search content.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Section 14 of the terms, headed No Professional Advice, says professional information through the Service is for information only and not advice. It then names the concrete failure case for a patent tool: patent legal status is shown as received from authorities without warranty, and users are directed to the national patent authority for authoritative status. Supervision is handled in the acceptable use policy: clause 4.2(xix) prohibits using outputs in or as the basis for regulated legal decisions without independent review by a qualified professional. Use is limited to adults acting in a business or professional capacity, not consumers. No jurisdiction limit is stated for the product's own coverage, and the direction to a national authority addresses legal status only.
The product is sold to patent law firms, IP professionals and, expressly, to users with no patent search knowledge, and the go.dennemeyer.com page states it safeguards against possible infringement cases, which is a capability claim. Neither that page nor the product page states that search or Octi outputs are not legal advice or how the product supports a supervising practitioner's duties, and no customer agreement is published to carry such a statement.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No governance position is published for a system that decides which prior art a professional sees. There is no responsible AI statement, governance framework, named owner for model behavior, evaluation regime for ranking quality, published test results, or anything on bias. Bias has a specific shape here: a similarity model offering native AI search only in English and Japanese may perform unevenly across the 22 languages and 97 authorities it covers, and nothing addresses that. The information security program aligned with ISO 27001 is a security matter, not AI governance. One clause works against outside scrutiny: clause 4.2(xxi) prohibits benchmarking, testing or comparing the Service for publication without prior written consent.
The vendor states its methods derive from decades of scientific research at the Max Planck Institute and LMU Munich and that users control the machine learning. No governance framework, testing regime, accountable owner, responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing results or statement about uneven retrieval across technical fields or languages is published on the product page or the blog.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
On retention and deletion, clause 12.9 commits to deletion from active systems within thirty days of termination or request, with written confirmation available; 6.5 adds deletion from backups in the regular cycle; and section 16 gives thirty days to export before deletion. On access control, 12.4 requires access controls, encryption in transit and at rest, logging and monitoring, vulnerability management and secure development, with confidentiality duties on authorized staff, and section 3 makes credentials personal under a named account administrator. On incidents, 12.8 commits to notice without undue delay, covering the nature of the incident, categories and approximate volume affected, likely consequences and measures taken. On subprocessors, 12.5 commits to publishing a current list on the trust center, with email updates of changes and equal protections passed down. Transfers are covered at 12.6, audits at 12.10 and US state privacy terms at 12.12.
Search servers sit in a German data center with restricted access and continuous vulnerability monitoring, traffic is SSL encrypted, and the product page says queries are encrypted in the browser, decrypted on those servers, analyzed for a split second and immediately deleted. The Octimine app's privacy policy, last updated in September 2022, lists access, transmission, backup and data segregation controls, keeps personal data as long as its purpose requires, and says hosting and IT maintenance providers may sit outside the European Economic Area under standard contractual clauses. It names a data protection officer. No retention period for workspace content, Octi prompts or monitoring profiles, no subprocessor list and no incident notification practice is published, and no customer agreement or DPA for the product is published.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Section 18 provides the Service as is and as available, with all warranties disclaimed, including fitness and noninfringement. Section 19 caps total liability at fees paid in the twelve months before the event and excludes indirect and consequential damages. It also removes the product risk rather than allocating it: the customer accepts that outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or inappropriate, is solely responsible for checking them, and Amplified disclaims all liability for reliance on outputs. The indemnity in section 17 runs only from customer to Amplified, with no intellectual property or other indemnity to the customer. No insurance position is published. Carve outs are kept for death, personal injury, fraud and willful misconduct.
The product page, on the Dennemeyer site, describes features and security without any warranty, indemnity, cap or insurance position. No terms of use, subscription agreement or license for Octimine is linked from it, and the Octimine app's sign-in page links only its privacy policy.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
The help center documents importing a result list from a complementary search tool, naming CAS and STN, a specific path for a professional searcher. The site navigation carries How it works, Blog, Pricing and Resources, with no integrations page, API reference or developer documentation. A public GitHub organization is linked from the footer. No IP management system, docketing platform, document management system or patent office filing interface is named on any vendor page. Single sign on providers appear only in a third party software directory. Export is well served, with search history export and sharing to unlimited viewers, but export is not integration.
An API embeds semantic search and patent data in a customer's own platform, and the product page says it supports custom workflows and applications. Springer Professional is quoted on linking its literature to relevant patents through the API. Octimine also publishes API documentation, and the API host, api.octimine.com, opens on a sign-in page. Result lists export as PDF reports or Excel files for import into Boolean search tools or IP management software. What a customer must configure and any named IP management system integration are not described.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Amplified's trust center says it builds on Fly.io and Amazon Web Services and relies on their compliance with privacy and security standards, including regular independent audits, with data encrypted in transit and at rest. Naming providers is not naming a location. No region, country or data center appears anywhere, no residency option is offered, and nothing says whether the platform is single or multi tenant or whether enterprise customers get a dedicated arrangement. Clause 12.6 commits to a lawful mechanism for international transfers of personal data, naming EU Standard Contractual Clauses Module Two, the UK Addendum and IDTA, a Swiss addendum and Brazilian SCCs. That shows data crosses borders without saying between which places.
Search engines and servers are located in a data center in Germany with restricted access, according to the product page, which fixes residency and processing for the search. The Octimine app's privacy policy adds that hosting and IT maintenance providers may sit outside the European Economic Area, under standard contractual clauses. Nothing states whether customers share infrastructure, whether Octi's language-model inference runs in Germany, or whether any other region is offered.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Amplified claims no certification of its own. Clause 12.4 describes an information security program aligned with ISO 27001 standards, and the trust center describes adherence to ISO compliance standards. Alignment is self assessed: no certifying body, scope, observation period or report date is published, so nothing can be checked against a register. The certifications named belong to the hosts: the trust center cites the compliance of Fly.io and Amazon Web Services and their regular independent audits, which does not carry over to the platform. The route to evidence is a trust center at trust.amplified.ai, a commitment in clause 12.4 to publish security summaries and independent assessment information there, and a commitment in 12.10 to provide audit summaries and security documentation on written request.
Extremely secure servers in a German data center, restricted access, SSL encryption, continuous monitoring for vulnerabilities and a variety of sophisticated measures are described on the product page, and the Octimine app's privacy policy lists access, transmission, backup and segregation controls. No ISO 27001, SOC 2 or other certification, auditor, coverage period or report route is stated, and no trust center for the product or the group is published.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The training clause separates general AI models from customer specific models and classifiers that Amplified trains, and the product has two AI ranking modes, semantic and neural concept similarity, built on deep learning over patent data. So Amplified runs its own models rather than reselling a general assistant. Nothing verifiable is published about them: no model, version or architecture, no third party model or inference provider, no location for inference, and no commitment to notify customers of model changes. Fly.io and Amazon Web Services are named on the trust center as infrastructure, which says where the platform runs, not whose models process a search. Clause 12.5 commits to publishing the subprocessor list on the trust center.
The semantic search runs on the company's own machine- and deep-learning models developed from Max Planck and LMU research, an in-house supply chain for retrieval. Octi is stated to run on advanced language models without naming a model or provider, and no inference location or change-notification commitment is stated for it.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
The rate is from $500 a month paid annually, a floor rather than a flat rate, and what it buys is listed: unlimited projects and viewers, search across more than 140 million patents, sharing of up to 50 projects, discussion and annotation, and cancellation at any time. The intended uses are named as novelty, invalidity and freedom to operate, and both AI ranking modes are included. Purchase is self serve, with signup and a trial request published and no sales conversation needed. Team pricing and enterprise options are quoted, not published, and clause 9.1 points to a second pricing page inside the application. The agreement adds that subscriptions renew automatically unless canceled in account settings, payments are not refundable except where law requires, and fees may change going forward on notice.
No unit of charge, plan or figure appears on the product page, which addresses solo inventors through large corporations, and its footer links no pricing page. A very limited free version can be trialled after registering, or a demonstration arranged with a specialist. WIPO's INSPIRE directory records the product as requiring a fee.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Searchable scope is quantified: more than 140 million records, 97 or more authorities, 22 languages, about 34 million original language publications and 50 million machine translations in the English index, plus family data and citations both ways. The work is named as novelty, invalidity and freedom to operate, the practice's own vocabulary. Buyers named include IP law firms, corporate research and development and IP teams, patent offices, universities and individual inventors. One limit is stated plainly: AI search is native in English and Japanese only, with other languages in beta and on request. No firm size or seat threshold is addressed, and in house and government use are named without description.
Buyers are stated as patent law firms, corporate IP and R&D teams, universities, patent offices and solo inventors, with financial institutions using the similarity data. Coverage is stated as more than 165 million patents directly accessible, with non-patent literature also searchable, and use cases as prior art, freedom to operate, landscaping and monitoring. The scope is patent and technical literature search rather than prosecution or docketing, which is the limit; no jurisdiction is named as unsupported.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The drafting separates two things clearly. Clause 6.3 says Amplified will never use customer content to train general AI models, an unqualified contractual bar. It separately allows customer specific models or classifiers to be trained on customer content at the customer's direction, to deliver those features back to that customer and its permitted users. Training therefore happens only where the customer has turned it on, and the general model route is closed by contract rather than policy.
The surrounding license limits use to providing, maintaining, securing, troubleshooting and improving the Service, for the period of use, ending when content is deleted from active systems. Clause 7 keeps Usage Data separate and expressly excludes User Content from it.
Whether customer search queries, uploaded descriptions or workspace content train models has no stated answer, and no customer agreement or terms of use is published for the product. The product page says results improve in accuracy over time as users rate them and that users can fine tune the machine learning, which concerns search behavior rather than training on customer content. The Octimine app's privacy policy grants an improvement right over the website without naming training, and the group privacy policy governs personal data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the window by instruction, and a default is published. Clause 12.9 commits to deleting or returning customer personal data from active systems within thirty days of termination or request, with written confirmation on request, and backups cycling out on standard schedules. Clause 6.5 says the same for user content generally: deletion from active systems on the customer's deletion or on termination, then from backups in the regular cycle, with limited retention allowed for law, legal process, audit, security and integrity.
Section 16 adds thirty days after termination to retrieve data before deletion. Zero retention is not offered as a setting.
Each search query is encrypted in the browser, decrypted on Octimine's servers in Germany, analyzed for a split second and immediately deleted, according to the product page. No period is stated for Octi prompts and answers, uploaded invention descriptions, workspace assessments or monitoring profiles. The Octimine app's privacy policy keeps personal data as long as its purpose requires, and no customer agreement is published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Amplified runs its own permission model and describes it at feature and contract level. Work is organized into projects, with sharing controlled by the customer: clause 6.1 leaves sharing settings with the customer, and 6.4 makes each share an explicit license to that recipient. Unlimited viewers sit alongside paid creator licenses, so read access and authoring rights are separate. Section 3 requires a named account administrator with authority over seats and settings, makes credentials personal, and prohibits sharing logins to give others paid features, with two factor authentication encouraged and able to be required.
The customer administers Amplified's own model. Nothing addresses separation between matters inside one customer account, which for a patent search tool means whether one client's freedom to operate project is walled off from another's.
The product page states that a customer can control the visibility of assessments and manage collections with folder hierarchies and tags in a shared workspace, and WIPO's directory records project-specific visibility settings. The Octimine app's privacy policy lists data segregation among its technical and organizational measures without describing it. No permission model is documented, and nothing describes how one client's searches are walled from another's within a firm account or how Octi respects those settings.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 13 of the terms lets a recipient of confidential information disclose it where law requires, but only with prompt notice to the disclosing party where lawful and with cooperation to limit what is disclosed. The clause is mutual, so it binds Amplified for the customer's confidential information, and the where lawful qualifier is the standard carve out for gag orders. Confidential information is defined broadly enough to cover the customer's research: nonpublic business and technical information reasonably understood to be confidential, including invention disclosures and search strategy held in projects. No transparency report on government or third party requests is published.
The Octimine app's privacy policy lists compliance with legal obligations among its purposes, including disclosures to tax authorities, financial service regulators and other regulatory and governmental bodies, and investigating or preventing crime. Nothing commits to telling the customer about such a disclosure or about a third party demand for its data, and no customer agreement for the product is published. The group privacy policy addresses personal data controllership rather than legal process.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The patent collection is described by coverage, not by named source or license. The figures are specific: more than 140 million records, over 120 million full text records, 97 or more patent authorities, 22 languages, about 34 million original language publications and 50 million machine translations in the English index, plus family data and citations both ways, updated weekly. That tells a searcher which jurisdictions and record types are in scope.
Nothing says where the data comes from or on what terms: no data supplier, aggregator or patent office feed is named, no licensing arrangement is described, and nothing covers the scientific literature the marketing mentions separately.
The search runs over more than 165 million patents, which the product page describes as directly accessible, with literature other than patents also indexed and legal status monitoring offered. The Top 9 reasons post and the product page do not state the patent offices or data providers the documents come from, the license basis, or how often the database is refreshed.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
For patents, the equivalent question is legal status, and Amplified addresses it directly and negatively. Section 14 says patent legal status is shown as received from the authorities without warranty and directs users to the national patent authority for authoritative status. That disclaims currency rather than providing a treatment signal: the product passes through what the registers report and does not verify, annotate or flag whether a patent is still in force.
Alerts can be set on individual patents to report changes in legal status, which monitors change going forward rather than checking status at the time of search. No verification prompt, treatment indicator or status signal of its own is published.
The product tracks legal-status changes on patents through monitoring and offers citation-based exploration of patent families, which is patent-office status rather than a case-law citator. Subsequent history of case law is outside what it tracks.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No abstention path is described, and the design gives the question a different shape. The system ranks rather than answers, and it commits to sorting but never excluding results, so there is no point at which it declines to return something. Two related features are not uncertainty signals. Keyword counts are shown so a searcher can see where the model misunderstood an input, and the help documentation tells users to read noisy results as a sign their description was too vague and to correct it.
Neither is a confidence or grounding score on a result, and nothing on the home page, how it works, pricing, terms, trust center or help center describes what the system does when it cannot rank meaningfully.
Octi's behavior when workspace documents cannot support an answer, and the search's behavior when nothing similar exists, go undescribed. Results are returned as ranked similarity lists of up to a thousand documents, and no abstention path or confidence signal is described for the assistant.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Amplified or Amplified AI. The database tracks fabricated legal citations in court filings, and this product returns records from a patent corpus rather than generating citations. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Octimine or Dennemeyer. Court findings in patent matters include the District of Kansas sanctions concerning patent counsel's use of ChatGPT and other general purpose tools, none of which names this product. The search returns real patent documents rather than generated citations.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Section 14 of the terms says professional information through the Service is for information only, not advice, and directs users to a qualified professional. Clause 4.2(xix) prohibits using outputs in or as the basis for regulated legal decisions without independent review by a qualified professional. Both treat the professional's duty as a subject. No bar association, patent bar, regulator, rule of professional conduct or ethics opinion is named on the home page, how it works, pricing, terms, trust center or help center, and nothing addresses the duty of candor to a patent office, the professional obligation a prior art search tool most directly engages.
The product is sold to patent attorneys among others, and no guidance from any bar, patent office or regulator on practitioners' use of AI, and no ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework, is named on the product page or in the blog posts.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Amplified's headline claim is that IP professionals cut 50 to 80 percent of the time previously spent searching, and the marketing says prior art can be found in an hour or less without search experience. Nothing addresses what happens to a client bill or a fixed search fee when that time shrinks, and no record of AI assisted work by matter is described for fee or disclosure purposes. Search history can be exported, which shows what was searched but is not a billing record.
Amplified charges per creator license per month rather than per search, which is a cost fact, not an answer on client billing.
Patent law firms are a named buyer segment and the published position on the bill is a savings claim: prior-art search time drastically reduced, results in a split second, reduced need for expertise. Nothing on the go.dennemeyer.com page or the product page addresses how AI-assisted search is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Clause 12.5 commits Amplified to publishing a current subprocessor list on its trust center, with email updates of changes, and to passing down data protection duties no less protective than the DPA. Clause 12.4 commits to publishing security summaries and independent assessment information there, and 12.10 to providing audit summaries and security documentation on written request. A DPA is built into the terms at section 12, a document that can be forwarded to clients without signing anything. No model provider is named in the terms.
No sub-processor list, model provider list or forwardable disclosure material is published for the product. The group privacy policy names the German affiliate and its data protection officer, which reaches the product but is not a processor list. The Octimine app's privacy policy says unnamed hosting and IT maintenance providers may sit outside the European Economic Area under standard contractual clauses and names Matomo for analytics, and Octi's language-model provider is not named. No DPA or customer agreement for the product is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Projects retain every patent read, marked relevant, flagged or hidden, and a search history can be exported covering both AI and Boolean searching, which gives a defensible account of what was looked at and in what order. The published commitment that the AI sorts but never excludes strengthens that record, because it means the export reflects a ranking rather than a silent filter. Annotation and notes are retained per project.
Nothing states that the model or ranking mode used for a given result set is recorded in the export, no version is captured, and no human sign off is documented as recorded. No disclosure guidance or template for a patent office or court is published, and nothing addresses the duty of candor context in which such a record would be produced.
Result lists export as PDF reports or Excel files and the workspace keeps ratings, comments and assessments, which together record what was searched and what a reviewer concluded, and a prior-art search report is disclosable work product. Nothing states that the search parameters, model version or reviewer verification can be exported as a record for a court or office.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
In summary
Amplified
Amplified, from Amplified AI, Inc., is an AI patent search and research platform for novelty, invalidity and freedom to operate work. It ranks more than 140 million records from 97 or more authorities by conceptual similarity to an invention description or patent number, with Boolean filters, relevance feedback and two AI ranking modes. According to the AI Legal Index, its terms never use customer content to train general models and commit to deleting content within thirty days of a request. It publishes a price from $500 a month. AI search is native in English and Japanese.
Dennemeyer Octimine
Dennemeyer Octimine, from Dennemeyer Octimine GmbH of Munich, is a semantic patent search, analytics and monitoring platform over more than 165 million patents. It was founded in 2015 by researchers from LMU Munich and the Max Planck Institute and acquired by the Dennemeyer Group in 2018. Octi, its assistant, summarizes and compares patents, and an API embeds search in a customer's systems. According to the AI Legal Index, its search servers sit in a German data center, and Siemens and Harvard University were named as users at acquisition.
Questions buyers ask
Amplified vs Octimine: which is better for semantic patent search?
They are close. Amplified publishes stronger terms on training, deletion and breach notice, and a price. Octimine hosts in Germany, documents an API and names long standing institutional users. Searchers who need a readable contract first have more from Amplified. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Amplified train AI on invention disclosures?
Not for general models. Clause 6.3 of Amplified's terms states that it will never use customer content to train general AI models, and allows customer specific models or classifiers to be trained only at the customer's direction, to deliver features back to that customer. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where does Octimine host data?
Octimine states that its search engines and servers are located in a data center in Germany with restricted access and continuous vulnerability monitoring. Amplified names Fly.io and Amazon Web Services as its infrastructure without naming a region. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do Amplified and Octimine cost?
Amplified publishes a floor of $500 a month paid annually, covering unlimited projects and viewers and search across more than 140 million patents, with paid seats for those who create projects and team and enterprise pricing quoted. Octimine is sold for a fee to buyers from solo inventors to large corporations. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Three points to weigh. Amplified's terms bar customers from benchmarking or comparing the service for publication without its consent. They also disclaim liability for reliance on its output, and the only indemnity runs from the customer. Those are published terms. Octimine publishes no customer agreement, so its position on liability cannot be read. Octimine's named customers date from its 2018 acquisition. Neither vendor reviewed this page.