ClaimMaster vs Patent Bots: how they compare in 2026
ClaimMaster and Patent Bots grew from the same idea, automated proofreading for patent practitioners, and still overlap on most daily drafting tasks. ClaimMaster is a Word add in that runs on the user's own computer or network. Its proofreading, office action shells, USPTO forms and patent data downloads from Patent Center, Espacenet and Google Patents all work from inside Word, and its drafting tools generate sections, figures and flowcharts. Patent Bots runs as a cloud service with its own Word add in. Its proofreading follows rules, its generative drafting runs on Anthropic models through AWS Bedrock with zero data retention, and it adds prosecution research: examiner statistics, an art unit predictor and firm quality rankings. Patent Bots publishes firm prices, from $65 a month for a solo practitioner's drafting and proofreading tool. ClaimMaster suits a firm that wants documents to stay on its own machines and patent data inside Word. Patent Bots suits a team that wants examiner and art unit data beside its drafting and proofreading.
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.
ClaimMaster's core is rule based. Proofreading of claims, specifications and office action responses, template drafting of sections and flowcharts, office action shells, USPTO forms and patent data downloads all run without a language model. The +Drafting and +Shells add ons bring the generative tools: drafting and rewriting text, figure descriptions, an LLM chat, office action analysis and, since version 2026.5, optional LLM proofreading with custom prompts.
Machine learning drives two parts of the suite. Art Unit Predictor is a neural network trained on public USPTO data. It reads claims and ranks the five art units and three groups most likely to receive an application. It also highlights the words pulling it toward each one, weighted by how often they appear in that art unit's patents compared with patents generally. Generative AI drafts figure descriptions, claim summaries, claim clauses and flowcharts and answers questions in a chat that takes the application and supporting documents as context. Most of the suite runs without either. Proofreading checks follow rules, examiner statistics come from USPTO records, and the office action tools fill forms and shells from templates. The terms say most tools use no generative AI at all, and every generative feature is off until an administrator turns it on.
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.
ClaimMaster's drafting tools can run retrieval augmented generation over a local workspace of selected sections from earlier applications, retrieved by meaning, and users can supply example documents to reduce hallucinations. Users are told to review responses for factual correctness, especially at higher creativity settings. Output does not cite the passages it drew on, and no accuracy figure or test is published.
Generative drafting and chat answer from the user's own application, claims and supporting documents, which are passed in as context, and the patent chat in PatentPlex draws on the full prosecution record and family claims. Statute and MPEP citations in Office Action Explorer link to their sources at the USPTO. No accuracy figure is given for drafted text, chat answers or art unit predictions, and drafted sections carry no pointer back to the passage they rest on. The terms state that the service is not warranted to be accurate or error free.
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.
Every LLM feature in ClaimMaster sends data only after the user presses a button, and the user controls exactly what is sent. Drafted text can be previewed and edited before insertion, and each prompt carries a creativity setting. LLM proofreading in version 2026.5 needs an explicit opt in at both the administrator and the user level, and all GPT features can be switched off for a whole firm on request. Nothing limits what the output may be used for or describes a review step before filing.
Generative drafting works section by section inside the attorney's own Word document, as a chat assistant and prompt library, rather than producing a whole application. Every generative feature is off by default and must be switched on by a subscription administrator. Proofreading returns findings for the attorney to fix, and the claim markup check compares amended claims against a prior version before filing. Patent Bots frames the drafting tools as support for attorney judgment. No limit is stated on what drafted text may be used for, and nothing describes what happens when a draft is wrong.
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.
ClaimMaster says thousands of patent professionals use it, at some of the largest corporations and law firms as well as smaller firms and solo practices, and the site quotes satisfied users without names. It was built by a practicing patent attorney and a former USPTO examiner. No named firm, dated result or method is published.
Five firms appear in case studies, among them Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, Edell, Shapiro & Finnan, Brake Hughes Bellermann, GTC Law Group and Pierce Atwood. Young Basile ranked third among large patent firms in the 2026 Patent Bots quality rankings of 709 firms, and Edell, Shapiro & Finnan's ranking in Tech Center 2400 rose from eighth in 2020 to second. Those rankings come from Patent Bots' own count of errors in issued patents, so the measure and the product share an owner. According to the vendor, 45 of the top 100 patent law firms use it and drafting tools save 6 to 12 hours per patent, without a stated method.
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.
ClaimMaster warrants that the add in collects and transmits no user data, apart from patent number lookups, term definitions and LLM prompts sent at the user's request. It gives the risk of waiving attorney client privilege in cloud processing as the reason for running locally. LLM prompts go straight to the chosen provider with no intermediate server, ClaimMaster trains no models on customer data, and it has not opted in to OpenAI data sharing and says it never will. Each user's documents stay on that user's machine, private endpoints and local models are available, and all GPT features can be turned off for a firm. These commitments sit on the security and help pages, not in the license agreement.
Section 2 of the terms commits that neither Patent Bots nor AWS Bedrock uses customer data for model training or improvement, and that neither stores or logs prompts or completions. Prep & Pros Pro discards patent documents immediately after returning results. Section 9 treats any nonpublic information uploaded as confidential, used only to provide the service, with notice of misuse and prompt notice before any legally required disclosure. Section 8 says use of the service creates no attorney client relationship or privilege, and the treatment of privileged material is not otherwise addressed. Accounts may not be shared, but nothing describes separation between matters or clients inside a firm's subscription.
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.
ClaimMaster sells to patent attorneys, agents and paralegals, and its license agreement makes the user solely responsible for content created with the software. The help pages tell users to review LLM responses for factual correctness and to decide whether each provider's policies meet their obligations. Nothing states whether the product gives legal advice, and nothing addresses competence or supervision duties, USPTO guidance on AI use, or jurisdiction.
Registered patent practitioners are the buyers: individual plans are open only to practitioners at law firms, law firm prices follow the count of registered attorneys and agents, and companies buy for their in house IP teams. The drafting tools are described as support for attorney judgment, assisting with sections and edits rather than writing a whole application. Section 8 of the terms states that no attorney client relationship arises, and section 3 puts the content of patent documents on the user. Competence and supervision duties are not discussed, and no ethics guidance is engaged.
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 AI governance position is published. It uses base models from OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Anthropic, or local models, without fine tuning them. Nothing describes how its prompts and AI features are tested before release, who answers for them, or how output quality varies across technologies.
No AI policy, principles, testing method or accountable owner is published for the generative features or the art unit model. Controls are product facts rather than governance: generative features are off by default and switched on by an administrator, and model providers may not train on customer data. Nothing addresses uneven output across technology areas or art units.
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.
The add in runs locally, keeps proofreading reports on the user's computer and collects no work product. Prompts go from the user's machine straight to the configured model over HTTPS, with no ClaimMaster server in between. ClaimMaster says data sent through the API is processed and not retained, while its summary of OpenAI's policy notes that provider's 30 day abuse monitoring retention. Files uploaded to a provider during a chat are deleted when the session ends and can be deleted earlier from the add in. Private Azure endpoints, a customer's own API keys and local models change who processes the data. No breach notification or incident practice is published.
Patent documents are processed and discarded at once, with no content stored or logged, and generative calls run on AWS Bedrock with zero data retention. PatentLink stores only public patent data, on Google Cloud. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, production access needs two factor authentication, employees pass background checks, and penetration tests run yearly with weekly vulnerability scans. The sub processor list, last updated 3 April 2026, names nine providers with location and purpose: Google, AWS, Cloudflare, Stripe, HubSpot, PostHog, Zoom, Calendly and Anthropic. Under the data processing addendum, a new sub processor gets 30 days' notice before it receives personal data, and a personal data breach is reported within 72 hours with set contents. Personal data is deleted on request, with stated limits for logs, backups and disputes.
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.
ClaimMaster's license agreement warrants that the software conforms to its specifications at purchase and is free of known malware. Bugs are repaired, the software updated or replaced at no charge during the subscription, and a prorated refund applies when a defect cannot be fixed. Indirect and consequential damages are excluded, including any loss of confidentiality from sending data to a third party model service, and no aggregate cap is stated. The user is solely responsible for content created with the software and indemnifies ClaimMaster against misuse, and no vendor indemnity covers output.
Section 3 of the terms has the user assume all risk and says Patent Bots holds no liability for errors or inaccuracies in processing patent documents or in its statistics. Section 15 excludes direct, indirect, consequential and other damages, and section 14 provides the service as is, disclaiming accuracy and reliability. No cap figure, indemnity, warranty or insurance runs to the customer. A firm with a separate signed contract may have other terms, which are not published.
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.
ClaimMaster runs inside Microsoft Word, where drafting happens. Its help files document downloading bibliographic data, file wrappers, family trees and PDFs from the USPTO Open Data Portal, Patent Center and EPO, with background downloads for large patent and IDS lists. They also cover configuring OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Anthropic and local LLM endpoints, and LLM summaries in the patent viewer. Bibliographic data for forms and shells can be imported from Private PAIR XML or from docketing tools as CSV, and no live connection to a docketing, document management or IP management system is described.
Prep & Pros Pro runs as a Microsoft Word add in as well as on the web. It converts Word tracked changes into claim markup, generates assignments and declarations from firm Word templates, writes client reporting letters from firm templates, and produces flowcharts in PowerPoint and Visio. Office Action Explorer pulls the latest office action, pending claims and cited prior art from USPTO records by application number. IDS forms come out as PDF on the USPTO form or as Word and Excel files. Family trees draw on USPTO and EPO data. No docketing, document management or matter management connection is documented.
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.
ClaimMaster installs on each user's Windows computer and processes documents locally, and installs on shared servers need separate licenses. LLM calls go from the user's machine to OpenAI, to Azure OpenAI or a customer's own Azure endpoint, to Anthropic, or to a model running locally through Ollama. OpenAI's servers are stated to be in the United States. Where the private OpenAI, Azure and Anthropic models that ClaimMaster configures for subscribers run is not stated.
Delivery is from the cloud, and section 2 of the terms places all processing and storage in the United States, with every server in the country. For Prep & Pros Pro the customer can choose to have documents processed on Google Cloud Platform or Amazon Web Services, under each provider's own terms. Generative features run on AWS Bedrock, and PatentLink data is stored on Google Cloud. No region outside the United States, private tenancy or on premises option is offered, and the tenancy model is not described.
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.
ClaimMaster names no SOC 2 report, ISO certification or audit. Its security page rests on local execution, and the API keys users store for private models are encrypted.
A SOC 2 Type II report from Prescient Assurance, issued under AICPA standards with an unqualified opinion, covers security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy. Audit reports, policies and the full control list sit in a trust center behind a bot check that did not load for a scripted browser, so how a buyer obtains the report is unknown. No audit period is stated.
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.
ClaimMaster connects to OpenAI's GPT models (GPT-5 among them), Azure OpenAI, Anthropic's Claude models and local models through Ollama, and does not run proprietary models. It configures private, stateless OpenAI, Azure and Anthropic models for subscribers, and customers can bring their own keys or Azure endpoints. Calls go directly from the user's computer to the provider. Model support changes appear in release notes, such as the October 2026 updates for recent Anthropic, OpenAI and Ollama API changes, and no notice of changes is committed.
Generative features run through AWS Bedrock, and the sub processor list names Anthropic's large language models for processing document content, so the provider and the platform are both named. Which Anthropic models are used is not stated. The data processing addendum promises 30 days' notice before a new sub processor receives personal data. The art unit model is Patent Bots' own neural network trained on public USPTO data.
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.
ClaimMaster publishes per user prices for every tier, billed monthly or annually with 20 percent off annually. Lite costs $20 a month on annual billing ($24 monthly), or $30 with shells and forms; QA costs $30; Pro costs $35, $45 with shells, $65 with drafting and $75 with both ($90 monthly). Volume discounts are 5, 10 and 15 percent at 5, 16 and 41 seats, checkout is self service through SoftwareKey, and auto renewal can be cancelled at any time. Users download and activate the add in themselves after a 30 day trial of the full version, and firms deploying widely can get a custom installer and online training by arrangement.
Prices are published for every buyer type. An individual practitioner at a law firm pays $702 a year for Prep & Pros Pro, without the office action admin tools. Law firm prices follow the count of registered practitioners, on monthly or annual terms. For a solo firm the same product costs $65 a month, rising to $1,240 a month for 31 to 50 practitioners and $3,700 a month above 200, with Art Unit Predictor, PatentPlex and premium examiner statistics priced alongside. Company packages follow the number of patents issued to the company in the United States, with yearly minimums of $2,999 for Basic, $5,999 for Core and $9,999 for Premium. Onboarding needs carry their own minimums: $9,999 for a security review, $19,999 for single sign on and $39,999 for a custom contract. A 14 day free trial needs no onboarding, prices change with at least a month's notice, and payments are not refundable.
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.
ClaimMaster serves patent attorneys, agents and paralegals at firms and companies of every size, and in house attorneys use it to check outside counsel's work. Drafting covers electrical, software, mechanical and biochemical technologies. Its shells and forms are built for USPTO practice, office action analysis now reads non United States and non patent citations, and EPO data can be downloaded. It runs in Word on Windows. Where the generative tools perform less well is not stated.
The suite covers United States patent preparation and prosecution: drafting, proofreading, office action responses, IDS and USPTO forms, examiner and art unit research, family and timeline lookup, portfolio lists and firm rankings. Buyers are patent law firms sized by registered practitioners, solo practitioners at firms, and in house IP teams sized by issued patents. Family trees draw on EPO data, but drafting and forms follow USPTO practice. Generative drafting is built for sections and edits rather than whole applications, and trademark work, litigation and prosecution outside the United States are not described.
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?
ClaimMaster never receives document content, since the add in runs locally, and its data policy page says it trains no models on customer data. It has not opted in to OpenAI data sharing, and it summarizes the OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Anthropic API terms, which bar training on API data. The license agreement addresses only feedback submitted to ClaimMaster, not training. The drafting page's invitation to train models on a firm's own data refers to example documents passed into prompts.
Section 2 of the Patent Bots terms states that neither Patent Bots nor AWS Bedrock, which runs the generative features, uses customer data for model training or improvement. Section 9 limits use of uploaded nonpublic information to providing the service, and the security page repeats that customer data is used only for the requested service.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
ClaimMaster keeps no prompts or outputs, because the add in runs on the user's computer. Prompts sent to OpenAI's API may be kept up to 30 days for abuse monitoring under OpenAI's policy, which ClaimMaster quotes, while its own summary says API data is not retained. Files uploaded during a chat are deleted when the session ends. A customer can route prompts to its own Azure endpoint or to a local model, keeping them off any provider.
Once proofreading results are returned, the patent documents are discarded at once, with no copy and no log of their content. Generative prompts and completions are not stored or logged by Patent Bots, and AWS Bedrock runs them with zero data retention. PatentLink lists, which hold public patent data and user notes, are stored on Google Cloud, and personal data in logs and backups follows unstated retention periods.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Each ClaimMaster user works on a local computer with no shared matter store, so documents never pool between users. No permissions at matter level are described for document workspaces or prompt templates shared across a firm.
Each person needs an account of their own, and subscription content may be shared only within the subscribing company and with its clients or outside counsel. Nothing describes separating matters, clients or teams inside a firm's subscription.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Under its license agreement, ClaimMaster may disclose information provided by or about the user, or about their use of the software, under lawful process or law enforcement requests. No commitment to notify the user is made. ClaimMaster holds no document content, which limits what it could disclose.
Under section 9 of the terms, Patent Bots may disclose confidential information when legally required but promptly informs the customer so the disclosure can be contested or narrowed. It also commits to notify the customer of any misappropriation or misuse. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
ClaimMaster's AI works on the user's own documents and workspaces of earlier applications, with no legal corpus behind its answers. Its downloading tools draw public USPTO and EPO patent data, separate from the generative tools.
Examiner statistics, office actions, prosecution histories and art unit training data come from USPTO records, and family trees combine USPTO and EPO data, including PCT and foreign filings. Statute and MPEP citations link to the USPTO. The terms note that patent office data may be temporarily unavailable, and no update cadence or rights basis for the data is stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
ClaimMaster's generative tools draft and analyze patent text and cite no legal authority. Office action analysis annotates prior art by column and line, and no check of whether cited law is still good is described.
Family trees mark issued patents apart from pending and other applications, and PatentPlex timelines list prosecution and post issuance events from USPTO and EPO data. No determination of whether a patent remains in force is described, and drafted text cites no authority to check.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Users preview drafted text before insertion and are told to check it for factual correctness. What the tools do when the source material cannot support a draft is not described, and no confidence signal is shown.
Nothing describes how the generative chat or drafting tools respond when the supplied documents do not support an answer. Ranked art unit predictions come without a stated confidence or abstention.
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, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for ClaimMaster. ClaimMaster drafts patent application text and office action responses for filing with the USPTO.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Patent Bots. Its output goes into patent applications and USPTO responses rather than court filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
ClaimMaster's security page discusses the risk of waiving privilege in cloud processing without citing any guidance. No ethics opinion, USPTO guidance on AI use, court order or bar guidance is referred to.
No ethics opinion, bar guidance or USPTO guidance on AI use by practitioners is engaged. The drafting tools are described as support for attorney judgment, without tying that to a practitioner's duties.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The drafting page tells patent professionals to beat their hours budget and reduce costs to clients. How work drafted with AI should be billed or disclosed to clients is not addressed.
Patent law firms are the main buyers, and the pitch is higher realization rates and fewer written off hours, especially on fixed fee work, with drafting tools said to save 6 to 12 hours per patent. Nothing addresses how AI assisted drafting or proofreading time should appear 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?
Document text reaches only the model the customer selects, OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Anthropic or a local model, directly from the user's computer. ClaimMaster's data policy page sets out each provider's data use and retention terms and links them. ClaimMaster itself processes no content, so it publishes no data processing agreement.
A sub processor list dated 3 April 2026 names nine providers with location and purpose, including AWS for hosting and language model services and Anthropic for processing document content. The data processing addendum gives 30 days' notice of new sub processors. Audit reports and policies sit in a trust center behind a bot check, and no client facing disclosure pack is offered on the open site.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
ClaimMaster's output goes into patent applications and office action responses filed with the USPTO. Nothing records which text a model produced, and disclosing AI use to the Office or a court is not addressed.
Output goes into applications and office action responses filed with the USPTO, and nothing records which AI features or models contributed to a filing or how it was reviewed.
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.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
- Court Disclosure Support
Which one fits
Choose ClaimMaster if
- Documents must never leave your network. ClaimMaster runs on your own computer or network rather than in a vendor's cloud.
- Your docketing data should drive the paperwork. ClaimMaster can import and reuse data from a docketing system when it builds shells and forms.
- You want patent data without leaving Word. ClaimMaster reaches Patent Center, Espacenet and Google Patents from the document and builds family trees for domestic and foreign patents.
Choose Patent Bots if
- Prosecution strategy needs data. Patent Bots pairs its drafting tools with examiner grant and appeal statistics and a predictor for the art unit an application will reach.
- You want prices before a sales call. Patent Bots publishes firm, company and individual pricing, including $702 a year for one practitioner's Prep & Pros Pro.
- Generative drafting must stay under an administrator's control. Every generative feature is off until switched on, and prompts run on AWS Bedrock with zero data retention.
In summary
ClaimMaster
ClaimMaster, from ClaimMaster Software LLC, is a Microsoft Word add in for patent attorneys, agents and paralegals that runs on the user's own computer or network. It proofreads claims, specifications and office action responses, generates application sections, figures and flowcharts, and builds office action shells and USPTO forms. It reaches the USPTO's Patent Center, Espacenet and Google Patents from inside Word and can reuse data from a firm's docketing system. Seats run from $20 per user a month on annual billing to $75 for Pro with drafting and shells, with a 30 day free trial.
Patent Bots
Patent Bots, Inc. was founded in 2018 by a patent attorney and sells a suite for patent preparation and prosecution. Prep & Pros Pro proofreads and drafts in Word or the browser, Office Action Explorer and form tools handle prosecution paperwork, and examiner statistics and Art Unit Predictor inform strategy. According to the AI Legal Index, Patent Bots commits in its terms that customer data is never used for model training, and it holds a SOC 2 Type II report.
Questions buyers ask
Which proofreading checks do ClaimMaster and Patent Bots run?
ClaimMaster checks claims and specifications for missing antecedent basis and other drafting errors and reports results in Word, HTML or PDF. Patent Bots checks antecedent basis, claim numbering and dependency, word support in the specification, reference labels and limiting words, and verifies claim markup against a prior version. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where does each one process patent documents?
ClaimMaster runs locally, so proofreading happens on the user's own machine or network. Patent Bots processes documents in its cloud, on Google Cloud or AWS in the United States at the customer's choice, and discards them once results are returned. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can ClaimMaster or Patent Bots fill USPTO forms?
Each generates office action response shells and USPTO forms. Patent Bots also fills IDS forms from prior art numbers and writes client reporting letters from firm templates. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one helps plan a prosecution strategy?
Patent Bots offers examiner statistics on grant rates, interviews and appeals, along with Art Unit Predictor and Office Action Explorer. ClaimMaster centers on drafting, proofreading and patent data downloads inside Word. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How can ClaimMaster and Patent Bots be tried before buying?
ClaimMaster offers a 30 day free trial of the add in. Patent Bots offers a 14 day trial with no onboarding, and its basic examiner statistics are free. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 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.
ClaimMaster is published by ClaimMaster Software LLC. Patent Bots is made by Patent Bots, Inc., which publishes its own comparison of patent drafting tools that includes ClaimMaster. Neither vendor reviewed this page.