DeepIP vs Solve Intelligence: how they compare in 2026
DeepIP and Solve Intelligence sell AI patent drafting to the same patent attorney and are direct substitutes. The difference is where the work happens. DeepIP runs inside Microsoft Word, with drafting, review, office actions, freedom to operate and invalidity in the document, and offers on premises deployment as well as cloud hosting. Solve runs in its own browser editor, Patent Copilot, with agents for multi step tasks, and shows Word, SharePoint and NetDocuments among its integrations. Both publish terms with an intellectual property indemnity and a 12 month fee cap. DeepIP's also bar training on customer data and carry $5,000,000 of errors and omissions cover, while Solve's carve outputs out of its warranties and indemnity. Both name their model providers and offer SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports on request. Solve runs separate United States and EU deployments, each with its own subprocessors.
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.
Every DeepIP module is model driven. Drafting turns an invention disclosure into claims, specification and abstract, and the review module checks claims for antecedent basis, dependency gaps and section 101 risk. The prosecution module analyzes rejections and drafts responses with case law citations. Patentability, prior art retrieval, freedom to operate and invalidity analysis map claims against more than 120 million patents and non patent literature, and drawing generation turns sketches and method steps into formal figures. DeepIP combines an OpenAI model hosted on Azure with proprietary models built for patent work. Without the models, the Word add in has nothing to do.
Every Solve capability is model output: drafting applications, claims, figures, chemical structures and sequence listings, drafting office action responses, reviewing drafts, and building infringement, invalidity and freedom to operate charts. Agents take on whole multi step workflows, and retrieval decides which sources to query and how to iterate. Solve says its models are trained and tuned for patent law and run on providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS. Without the models, Patent Copilot is an empty browser editor.
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 office action module drafts responses with case law citations from its citation engine, and prior art retrieval ranks references by relevance with the citation shown for each. Freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the claim or prior art text that supports them, and Modern Times Legal's founder describes quoted citations linked to their sources. Retrieval is semantic, across more than 120 million patents and non patent literature. DeepIP says its models go through testing for factual accuracy with patent expert feedback, but publishes no accuracy figure, test set or error rate.
Responses and charts carry citations to multiple sources, and charts show their logic. Retrieval preserves citations, follows citation trails and ties each reference back to the legal or technical question, and case law and MPEP provisions are reachable inside the platform. No accuracy rate, error rate, test set or evaluator 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.
Inside Microsoft Word, the product works as an assistant. Drafts, review flags, office action arguments and freedom to operate opinions arrive in the document, where attorneys comment, edit and track changes. The review module marks issues inside the claim text, and freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the claim or prior art text behind them. DeepIP offers trials only to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents, and its terms leave the customer solely responsible for reviewing and validating every output. Nothing states what a module may complete without an attorney, or where its agentic prior art retrieval stops and hands back to a person.
A copilot inside a document editor is the working model: attorneys draft and respond interactively, with output matched to their own style and templates. Agents can take on entire prosecution and litigation workflows, and agentic retrieval chooses its own sources and filters, with each step building on the user's input. Solve's terms make the customer responsible for every decision and action based on output, and its trust center lists oversight of human decisions on AI recommendations as a control. Nothing states what an agent may complete without approval, where it stops, or what review comes before filing.
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.
Nixon & Vanderhye's Corey Hawse reports tasks that took 20 to 30 minutes now taking under five, and gains of 50 percent or more on the tasks where savings are sharpest. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, with more than 100 practitioners, reports focused work rising from four to six hours a day to seven or eight. Philips saw about 20 percent better drafting and prosecution efficiency in a trial and now uses DeepIP for invention analysis, prior art, drafting and office actions. Dilworth IP chose DeepIP as its primary drafting system after two years of evaluating tools, and Wood IP and Greenberg Traurig are quoted by name. The figures are the firms' own estimates, and the case studies carry no dates. DeepIP reports more than 25,000 applications drafted and 40,000 matters assisted, and $40 million raised through a $25 million Series B announced on 3 March 2026.
Customers are named widely. DLA Piper partner Larissa Bifano, Intel chief patent counsel Jeff Draeger, Banner Witcoff's Laura Brutman, Ashurst Perkins Coie's Thomas Yee and BCLP's George Chen are quoted by name. Siemens, Finnegan, Quinn Emanuel, Fish, Amgen and Foley Hoag sit on its customer advisory board. Solve reports more than 433,000 applications, 103,000 office action responses and 6,500 claim charts created, and an average workload saving above 50 percent. Those figures carry no method, baseline or date.
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.
All customer data counts as confidential information under DeepIP's terms, which recognize that it may include material covered by attorney client privilege and keep the confidentiality duty on it indefinitely. The terms bar training on customer data, require model providers to keep it confidential and apart from other customers, and set out its destruction after termination. DeepIP lists section 203 of the German Criminal Code, the professional secrecy provision, beside ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II and GDPR. Users and organizations are kept separate, and no matter level wall within a firm is described.
Each user's data stays sandboxed, and Solve says neither it nor any third party monitors it. It is not used to train Solve's or any foundation model, and model providers keep nothing under zero data retention agreements. Solve's terms bind those providers to confidentiality and to using inputs and outputs only to provide their service. The terms treat all customer data as confidential information. Customers choose the jurisdiction where data is stored and processed, and data can be exported and deleted at the end of a contract.
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.
Not a law firm and not an attorney, DeepIP gives no legal advice, its terms state. Outputs and templates are tools for operational support, not guaranteed accurate, and the customer stays solely responsible for reviewing them and for advising its own clients. No attorney client relationship arises with DeepIP or its staff, including staff with patent backgrounds and the experts who run product sessions. DeepIP offers trials and demos only to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents, and tells inventors to consult patent attorneys. Duties of competence and supervision, and limits by jurisdiction, are not addressed.
No legal advice comes from Solve, its terms state, and customers should consult their own legal advisors. Customers and their users are responsible for every decision, piece of advice and action based on the service, and must use it in line with applicable rules and professional standards. The terms also bar customers from presenting any output as human generated. Competence and supervision duties, USPTO guidance and limits by jurisdiction are not addressed.
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.
An AI management system certified to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is listed on the trust center, with a 2026 certificate available through an access request. The trust center's controls include board oversight briefings, control self assessments and tested continuity plans. DeepIP says its models go through testing and validation for factual accuracy, with a feedback loop to patent experts, but publishes no test method or result. No accountable owner for the models is named, and nothing is disclosed about whether output quality differs across technical fields or patent offices.
AI governance controls on Solve's trust center cover the source of model data, exclusion of customer data from training, continuous model performance monitoring, oversight of human decisions on AI recommendations, and fairness and bias testing. ISO 42001 certification is in progress, and Solve says its controls meet the standard's requirements. No test results, model card or named accountable owner are published, and nothing is disclosed about uneven output across technical fields or offices.
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.
DeepIP encrypts data in transit with TLS 1.2 or later and at rest with AES 256, restricts access to production systems and databases, and requires multifactor authentication for remote access. Its trust center lists ten subprocessors with their roles and regions. The terms require zero data retention at the model provider and an opt out from provider abuse monitoring wherever the provider offers them. Customer data is stored only in the territories named in the order form and can be exported on request during the term. It is destroyed within 30 days of a final export, or after termination when no export is asked for within 8 days, with a destruction certificate on request. No incident notification commitment or breach timeline is published.
Customer data is not used to train or fine tune Solve's models or third party foundation models. Model providers process it under zero data retention agreements, with nothing stored for abuse monitoring or human review. Data is encrypted with TLS 1.3 in transit and AES 256 at rest, internal access is role based and least privilege, and access audits, vulnerability management and penetration tests run continuously. Thirteen subprocessors are named for each of the United States and EU deployments, and incident response protocols appear among Solve's listed controls. Customer data can be exported, and is deleted at the end of a contract in line with the customer's agreement. No retention period is stated for data held in the platform during a subscription.
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.
Under its April 2026 terms, DeepIP warrants professional performance and a service free from reproducible errors against its documentation, with repair, replacement or termination as the remedy. It defends and indemnifies customers against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property or trade secrets. DeepIP may then procure rights, modify or replace the service, or end the agreement and refund unused prepaid fees. Liability is capped at the fees paid in the prior 12 months, with confidentiality, intellectual property and indemnity claims outside the cap and consequential damages excluded. DeepIP warrants cyber liability and errors and omissions insurance of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence. The terms disclaim the accuracy of AI output and leave its review to the customer, and free trials carry a $1,000 cap.
Under terms last updated 6 June 2026, Solve gives an indemnity against third party claims that the services infringe intellectual property. Outputs are carved out, since Solve gives no warranties, indemnities or liability for them, and the customer answers for every decision and action based on them. Solve warrants professional and workmanlike service only. Liability is capped at fees paid in the prior 12 months, with indemnity obligations outside the cap, consequential damages excluded, and a $1,000 cap during a free trial.
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.
Microsoft Word is where DeepIP runs, so drafting, review, office action, freedom to operate and invalidity work happen in the document with comments and tracked changes. DeepIP integrates with docketing and IP management systems and offers a REST API for custom integrations. The prosecution module retrieves USPTO and EPO file documents in one click and indexes them with OCR. No docketing or IP management system is named, and what moves between DeepIP and those systems is not described. DeepIP reports 20 percent higher adoption and 40 percent higher usage for its embedded approach than for standalone tools.
Microsoft Word, Microsoft SharePoint, NetDocuments, Google Drive and Anthropic appear as integrations on Solve's home page, which also refers to patent office connections. Its terms mention connectors to third party services, and enterprise customers can arrange custom integrations. What any integration moves, in which direction, or how it is set up is not documented, and no docketing or IP management system is named.
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.
SaaS is the default for DeepIP, with an on premises data deployment available through the order form. Customer data is stored and processed only in the territories the order form names, and does not leave them without the customer's written consent. Its cloud hosts, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform, and its model provider, OpenAI, each run in the United States or the EU. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner chose DeepIP after a security review of its Azure deployment in the United States. No architecture or support terms are published for the on premises option.
Customers choose a United States or EU deployment, and the data never leaves the chosen jurisdiction. Each deployment has its own 13 subprocessors, and EU customer data is processed entirely on EU infrastructure and never shared with the United States set. Processing follows the same choice, so model calls stay in the chosen region. The service runs on AWS, and payments for every customer go through Stripe to the United States parent company. No single tenant or on premises option is 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.
ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and GDPR all appear on the trust center. It offers the 2026 ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certificates, the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a penetration test through an access request, and shows an engagement letter openly. Its control list covers production access, multifactor authentication, network segmentation, firewall review, background checks and tested continuity plans. DeepIP's security program follows NIST 800-53 Moderate and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, with outside penetration tests and vulnerability assessments. Auditor names and examination periods sit inside the reports, which open after the access request.
Solve holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification, and ISO 42001 certification is in progress. Its trust center offers the SOC 2 Type II report, ISO 27001 certificate, a penetration testing report and its OpenAI zero data retention agreement through an access request. It also lists 14 controls on AI data governance, model testing and AI security, and 13 subprocessors per deployment. Auditor names and report periods sit inside the documents, which open after the request.
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.
DeepIP uses an OpenAI model hosted on Microsoft Azure, sends no data to OpenAI's own infrastructure, and has Microsoft's abuse monitoring switched off under its Azure agreement. Its terms name OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Google Cloud Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock and Azure AI Foundry among the providers it may use. Each must contractually bar training on customer data and keep that data confidential. OpenAI, the language model provider, runs in the United States or the EU. No model or version is named for any module, and the terms commit to no notice when providers change.
Solve's trust center names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS as language model providers in both its United States and EU deployments, with NLPatent providing patent and literature retrieval. Its terms commit Solve to use only model providers that agree not to train on inputs or outputs and to keep them confidential, and an OpenAI zero data retention agreement is available on request. No model or version is named for any feature, and no notice of provider changes is committed.
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.
Subscriptions are sold by the seat, on monthly or annual terms that renew automatically, and the terms put the fee on the subscription page or an order form. A self service trial opens with a card on file and no charge before it ends. Price rises at renewal need 45 days' notice on annual plans and 20 days on monthly ones, and prepaid fees are not refunded on early exit. No seat price, tier or volume rate is published.
Solve publishes no price, tier or unit of charge. Its terms refer to subscriptions bought through a pricing page by card through Stripe, with renewal fee changes on notice and no refunds, but no such page is published. Enterprise pricing is set by arrangement.
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.
DeepIP serves law firms and in house patent teams, and limits trials and demos to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents; inventors are not offered access. It shapes drafts to the formal rules of the USPTO, EPO, CIPO, CNIPA, DPMA, INPI, IPO, JPO, KIPO and UKIPO, and to PCT filings. Modules run from invention disclosure and patentability through drafting, drawings, review and office actions to freedom to operate, invalidity and portfolio work. Chemistry and life sciences drafting handles Markush structures, stereochemistry, experimental data and ST.26 sequence listings, with further pages for mechanical, ICT and biology work. DeepIP reports more than 500 law firms and in house teams as customers, across 25 jurisdictions.
More than 700 IP teams on six continents use Solve, by its count, across law firms, in house IP teams and companies. Drafting handles figures from any file type, chemical structures and Markush claims, and biological sequence listings. Solution pages cover life sciences, telecommunications, standard essential patents, software and AI, medical devices, mechanical, electrical, consumer goods and design patents. Workflows run from invention disclosures and drafting through office actions, review, translation, charts, freedom to operate, invalidity, portfolio analysis and litigation. Solve reports 20 percent of Am Law 100 and Chambers ranked IP firms and 30 percent of the Vault 30 IP firms as customers. No list of patent offices or date range is published for its patent collections.
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?
Customer data may not be used to train, retrain or improve any AI model under DeepIP's April 2026 terms unless both parties agree in writing. Model providers it selects must contractually commit not to train their own models on that data. A separate clause lets DeepIP use aggregated, anonymized usage data, which can include prompts, to analyze and improve the service. DeepIP's security page and trust center state the same no training position.
Solve says no data uploaded to or output from the product is ever used to train any AI model of any kind, covering its own models and third party foundation models. Its terms bind model providers not to train on inputs or outputs and limit Solve's use of customer data to the purposes of the agreement, without a training clause for Solve itself. Solve's about page says its models keep improving against real patent workflows with every matter, without saying on what data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Prompts sent to the model provider are kept only as long as processing takes, under the zero data retention settings DeepIP's terms require where a provider offers them. Inside DeepIP, customer data is stored encrypted during the subscription, and no period is stated for prompts and outputs while it runs. After termination, DeepIP destroys customer data within 30 days of the final export, or once 8 days pass without an export request. DeepIP's trust center says customer data is not stored.
Customers control zero data retention settings for the model providers, and Solve's security page says provider calls run under zero data retention agreements, with prompts and outputs never stored for abuse monitoring. No retention period is stated for data held in the platform itself, which can be exported and is deleted at the end of a contract in line with the customer's agreement.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Users and organizations are kept completely separate, DeepIP states, and its trust center lists network segmentation among its controls. How separation works inside a firm is not described, including whether one attorney's matters are walled from another's or a matter can be limited to named users. Patent firms often prosecute for competitors in the same technical field, and no matter level restriction is described.
Customer data is sandboxed to each user and separated across customer environments, with role based, least privilege internal access. Enterprise customers get administrative and permission management tools, which are not described in detail, and no matter level wall is documented.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
When a court order or administrative process compels disclosure, DeepIP's terms commit it to notify the customer promptly in writing. DeepIP also takes reasonable steps the customer asks for to resist, and lets the customer control the proceeding with counsel of its choice. No transparency report is published. Contracts run through DeepIP Incorporated in New York for North American customers and DeepIP SAS in Paris for everyone else.
Either party may disclose confidential information, including customer data, to the extent necessary to comply with applicable law, under Solve's terms. No commitment to notify the customer is made, and 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?
DeepIP's prior art retrieval covers more than 120 million patents worldwide and non patent literature. Its prosecution module pulls USPTO and EPO file documents, including claims, examiner notes and cited art. No database or data provider is named for the patent collection, and no licensing basis, date range or update cadence is stated. DeepIP describes its product as combining third party models, proprietary models and unique data access, without naming the data.
Retrieval covers patent databases and prosecution histories, non patent and academic literature, technical standards, patent office records, case law, MPEP provisions and public product documentation. NLPatent is named as the subprocessor behind patent and literature retrieval. No licensing basis, office list, date range or update cadence is stated for any collection.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Office action responses drafted by DeepIP carry case law citations, and its freedom to operate module identifies active patent rights across jurisdictions. Nothing describes a check of a cited decision's later history, and no citator is named.
Case law and MPEP provisions sit inside the prosecution tools, and responses and charts cite their sources. Nothing describes a check of whether a cited decision is still good law, or whether a charted patent is in force, lapsed or invalidated.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
A structured novelty and obviousness assessment with confidence levels comes back from the patentability module. The review module gives a probability of a section 101 rejection, and freedom to operate analysis rates the risk from each blocking patent. What the system does when a disclosure cannot support a claim, or no prior art supports an answer, is not described.
A review module catches drafting errors before filing, and the trust center lists continuous model performance monitoring. No confidence signal accompanies generated claims or responses, and nothing describes the system declining when a disclosure cannot support a claim.
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 DeepIP. DeepIP drafts patent applications and office action responses with case law citations.
The AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for Solve Intelligence. Solve drafts patent applications, office action responses and litigation charts.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
DeepIP tells practitioners to validate everything the system produces and to apply their own professional judgment. Its terms state that it is not a law firm and gives no legal advice. No bar opinion, USPTO rule of professional conduct or patent office guidance on AI is named.
Customers must use the service in line with applicable rules and professional standards under Solve's terms, which also state that Solve gives no legal advice. No bar opinion, USPTO rule of professional conduct or guidance on AI in patent practice is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
DeepIP claims drafting time cut by up to 70 percent on a full application and more than two hours saved per attorney each day. Its ROI calculator puts typical savings at 40 to 55 percent of drafting and office action time, roughly $25,000 to $90,000 a year per attorney. The law firm page promises higher margins per case, and Philips reported about 20 percent better efficiency in a trial. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work appears on a client invoice.
Solve claims an average workload saving above 50 percent and users more than 90 percent more productive, and its trust center cites 60 to 90 percent efficiency and quality gains. BCLP's George Chen describes using it to produce better work within fixed fees or budgets. How AI assisted drafting or prosecution time appears on a client invoice is not addressed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Ten subprocessors appear on DeepIP's trust center, with roles and regions. Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform host the service, OpenAI provides the language model and Datadog monitors it, each in the United States or the EU. Auth0, Mixpanel, Intercom, Hyperline, HubSpot and PandaDoc cover identity, analytics, support, billing, marketing and documents. The 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certificates and a penetration test are available through an access request. No data processing agreement is published.
Thirteen subprocessors are listed with their roles for each of Solve's United States and EU deployments, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS as model providers and NLPatent for retrieval. Stripe handles payments. The SOC 2 Type II report, ISO 27001 certificate, a penetration testing report and the OpenAI zero data retention agreement are available through an access request. No data processing agreement is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Drafting, review, freedom to operate and invalidity work happen inside Microsoft Word, so comments and tracked changes record the editing. Freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the underlying claim or prior art text, and DeepIP describes those outputs as audit ready. Nothing marks which passages a model wrote, and no record shows that a practitioner adopted generated claim language before filing.
Solve's output cites its sources across documents and case law, and its charts show the logic behind each mapping, so a reader can see what a passage rests on. Its terms forbid customers from presenting any output as human generated. No record shows which model produced an output, or that a practitioner reviewed and adopted it before filing.
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
Which one fits
Choose DeepIP if
- Your attorneys draft in Word and will not move. DeepIP runs as a native Word add in, with comments and tracked changes recording the work, states integration with docketing and IP management platforms, and offers a REST API.
- Unpublished applications cannot leave your own infrastructure. DeepIP offers an on premises data deployment through its order form, and its cloud service keeps data in the territories the order form names, on Azure or Google Cloud in the United States or the EU.
- You need to know your filing route is supported before you buy. DeepIP shapes drafts to the formal rules of the USPTO, EPO, CNIPA, JPO, KIPO, UKIPO and other offices, and handles Markush structures, sequences and experimental data in chemistry and life sciences work.
Choose Solve Intelligence if
- You want agents to carry multi step work. Solve's agents take on whole prosecution and litigation workflows, and its agentic retrieval chooses sources across patents, literature, standards and case law.
- Your client mandates where the work sits. Solve runs separate United States and EU deployments, each with its own 13 subprocessors, and EU customer data is processed entirely on EU infrastructure.
- You want customers you can call. Solve quotes partners at DLA Piper, Banner Witcoff, Ashurst Perkins Coie and BCLP and Intel's chief patent counsel by name, and Siemens, Finnegan and Quinn Emanuel sit on its customer advisory board.
In summary
DeepIP
DeepIP is an AI patent assistant delivered as a native Microsoft Word add in, so attorneys draft, review and respond to office actions inside the document they already use. It covers drafting, drawings, review, prosecution, patentability, freedom to operate and invalidity, and names the offices it drafts for, from the USPTO and EPO to CNIPA, JPO and KIPO. DeepIP runs an OpenAI model on Azure, offers cloud or on premises deployment, and keeps customer data in the territories the order form names. Its April 2026 terms bar training on customer data, and seats are sold without a published price.
Solve Intelligence
Solve Intelligence is an in browser patent platform built around Patent Copilot. It drafts applications and office action responses in an attorney's style, reviews drafts before filing, and through its Charts product handles freedom to operate, infringement and invalidity work, with agents for multi step tasks. Customers choose a United States or EU deployment with its own subprocessors, and model providers from OpenAI to Anthropic run under zero data retention agreements. It names DLA Piper, Intel, Siemens and Finnegan among more than 700 IP teams, and publishes no price.
Questions buyers ask
DeepIP vs Solve Intelligence: which is better for a patent attorney?
It depends on where the attorney works. DeepIP runs inside Word and offers on premises deployment, and its terms add an errors warranty and $5,000,000 of errors and omissions cover. Solve runs in its own browser editor with agents and lets the customer pick a United States or EU deployment. Both say customer data trains no model and offer SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports on request. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 2, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Solve Intelligence train its models on client patent data?
Solve says no data uploaded to or output from the product is ever used to train any AI model of any kind, its own or a foundation model's. That statement sits on its security and home pages. Its terms, updated in June 2026, bind its model providers not to train on inputs or outputs, and customers control zero retention settings for those providers. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 2, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can either tool keep unpublished applications inside our own infrastructure?
Only DeepIP offers that. Its terms allow an on premises data deployment through the order form, and its cloud service keeps customer data in the territories the order form names. Solve offers a choice of United States or EU deployment, each with its own subprocessors, and describes no on premises option. DeepIP publishes no architecture detail for its on premises option. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 2, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one works inside Microsoft Word?
DeepIP. It runs as a native Microsoft Word add in, with drafting, review, freedom to operate and invalidity work in the document, and offers a REST API. Solve runs in its own browser editor and shows Microsoft Word, SharePoint, NetDocuments and Google Drive among its integrations without documenting what they do. Neither names a docketing system. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 2, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do DeepIP and Solve Intelligence both leave unpublished?
Neither publishes a price, an accuracy figure for its drafts, or a named accountable owner for its models. Neither names a bar or patent office conduct rule, including the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. And neither describes a check of cited case law for later treatment. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 2, 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.
Two points deserve a careful read. Solve's statement that no customer data trains any model sits on its security and home pages; its terms bind its model providers not to train but carry no training clause for Solve itself. DeepIP's trust center says customer data is not stored, while its terms keep data for the subscription and destroy it after termination, with zero retention applying at the model provider. Neither vendor reviewed this page.