Derwent Patent Search vs Minesoft PatBase: how they compare in 2026

The models are the engine of core capabilities layered on a product that would function without them, which is the B band. There is more AI here than the seed's single line suggests, and it is worth listing because the record's other rows depend on it: AI Search, a language transformer model trained on DWPI, launched December 2024 across more than 160 million patent records; AI data enrichment filling missing bibliographic fields such as assignee; Optimized Assignee with Ultimate Parent resolving current ownership; and AI-derived legal status prediction supplying estimated expiration date, remaining life and dead-or-alive status. What keeps this at B is that the platform underneath is a curated database and a classical search engine, and the vendor sells it that way. AI Search is presented as one search mode among several, alongside keyword and Boolean searching across more than 300 fields, classification browsing, the citation index and Themescape mapping. Remove every model and a buyer still has DWPI's editorially written invention summaries, family building, full text from 76 jurisdictions and litigation data from 140-plus. The human layer is the product's own headline claim, being over 800 patent editors rewriting disclosures into standard English, and the AI is trained on their output rather than substituting for it. Verified 13 September 2026.

The models are the engine of several named capabilities layered on a platform that functions fully without them, which is the B band. The AI additions are real and recent, arriving mostly across 2025 and 2026: Document Chat for generated answers about an individual patent, AI Explain for showing where a query overlaps a document, Smart Images for reading reference numerals out of patent drawings, AI-trainable alert classifiers, natural-language query expansion with relevance scores, the Smart Claims viewer distinguishing independent from dependent claims, and machine translation embedded across search and review. Underneath sits a platform whose independent existence is not in doubt and is in fact the vendor's oldest claim on its buyers. PatBase has been in market since 2003 on a company founded in 1996, and its core is a curated corpus of more than 180 million publications from over 100 authorities with family-level organization, daily data quality checking, and Boolean, proximity, wildcard and command-line searching that the vendor still markets to professional searchers as a primary mode. Strip out every model and a searcher retains the corpus, the family structure, the classification tools and the syntax. What the AI changes is who else can use it and how quickly, which is the B band exactly. Verified 13 September 2026.

Grounding is real and documented with a described retrieval method, short of any measured accuracy, which is the B band. The index's rule governs the shape of this row and the note says so, because the usual limbs bite differently: the product retrieves patent records from a closed curated index rather than generating propositions about the law, so a returned result is a real document with an identifier by construction and the fabrication risk this axis was written for does not arise in the same form. The retrieval method is described rather than asserted. AI Search is stated to use a language transformer model trained on DWPI, to work from free-text input such as an invention disclosure, and to be the only AI patent search trained and powered by that index, with the vendor explaining why that matters: the model learns from editorially written summaries of novelty, use and advantage rather than from raw patent prose. What is absent is measurement. No recall or precision figure is published for AI Search, no test set is described, no benchmark against keyword or Boolean searching is offered, and nothing states what the model misses. On a tool sold for first-pass patentability and freedom-to-operate work, recall is the metric that matters and none is given. Recorded and expressly not credited as measurement: a named customer's statement that relevant records now appear at the top of the list rather than after reviewing 50 to 200 results is a testimonial, graded on operational evidence. Verified 13 September 2026.

Grounding is real and documented at an unusual level of granularity, with no measured accuracy published, which is the B band. The grounding mechanism is a named feature rather than an architectural assertion. AI Explain shows the user precisely where and how their input overlaps a document's content, highlighting the specific sections and wording that matched, and the vendor states the purpose plainly: so a searcher can immediately judge how relevant a result is and understand why it appeared. That is passage-level attribution on a retrieval result, which is more than most records in this lane offer. Relevance scores accompany results, giving a ranked signal a user can act on, and Document Chat operates against a single patent so its answers have a bounded and visible source document. What is absent is measurement of the vendor's own accuracy. No precision or recall figure is published for the AI search, no test set is described, no evaluation of Document Chat is offered, and no failure mode is named. The agreement runs the other way and is worth recording because it is contractual rather than promotional: clause 11 disclaims any warranty that the Information is accurate or complete, and states that the licensor does not guarantee the accuracy of the Product or the Information or accept liability for the consequences of their use. Verified 13 September 2026.

A mode structure is published and nothing else about oversight is, which lands in the C band. What exists is real but thin. The user chooses between search modes, AI Search sitting alongside keyword, Boolean and advanced modes and classification browsing, so a customer can decide per search whether a model is involved at all, and the vendor describes AI Search as helping to validate results and ensure relevant records are not missed, which positions it as a complement to conventional searching rather than a replacement. That is a published distinction between how the product can be run, and it is the only oversight material located. Everything the higher bands ask for is absent. No statement describes what a searcher should do with AI Search results before relying on them, no confidence signal or ranking explanation is published, nothing describes how the model behaves when a query falls outside its training, and nothing addresses what happens when a search misses relevant art. R15 is applied and named: a search engine returning ranked records does not act unattended, so the limb asking at what threshold the system acts alone does not bite and is recorded as inapplicable rather than failed. But the limbs that do bite on a retrieval tool, being what the user is told about the reliability of a ranking and how to check it, are unaddressed, and the stakes are real because a missed prior art reference is the failure mode a patentability opinion turns on. Verified 13 September 2026.

Real user control over how the models behave, with review surfaces, short of the full control structure, which is the B band. Two published capabilities go beyond assurance to actual control. AI Explain lets a user interrogate why a result surfaced, exposing the overlap between query and document rather than presenting a ranking as a verdict. And AI alerts can be bulk-trained by the user from their own folders and search history, so the classifier that decides what reaches them is tuned by their own prior judgments rather than by the vendor alone. That is user authority over model behavior, which is rarer in this corpus than statements about human oversight. Relevance scores give a graded signal instead of a binary inclusion, letting a searcher decide where to stop. What the A band asks for is not published. No threshold is stated at which any capability acts without review, no mode distinction separates AI-assisted from conventional operation despite both being available, nothing describes what happens when a Document Chat answer is wrong, and no route is published for correcting or reporting an output. Nor is there any general statement that the tools support rather than replace professional judgment, which several comparable vendors do make. The controls here are practical rather than declared, and the note records that as the shape of the record. Verified 13 September 2026.

Real deployment evidence with substance, short of the dating and method the A band requires, which is the B band. Two kinds of evidence sit here and both are first-party. Institutional adoption is stated as a figure: the platform and its DWPI data are used by 40 global patent and trademark offices, which for a prior art tool is the strongest form of validation available, since those are the bodies that examine patentability for a living. And a named individual at a named organization gives an attributed before-and-after in the launch release: Susan Johnson, patent agent and IP researcher at Boston Scientific, describing other tools as requiring review of up to 50 or even 200 results to find the most relevant records, against AI Search placing the most relevant at the top. That is a named customer, an identified role and a concrete comparison in one artifact, which is more than most records in this lane manage. Three things hold it off A. Neither claim is dated as a deployment. No method accompanies the comparison, so the 50-to-200 figure describes the witness's experience of other products rather than a measurement of this one. And the 40 patent offices are counted rather than named, so a reader cannot verify which. The customer stories and case study material on the wider Clarivate estate were not reached, the site returning a bot-detection block, and are what would move this row. Verified 13 September 2026.

Scale and longevity are published without a single named customer or measured outcome, which is the C band. What exists is substantial as scale evidence. The vendor states more than 90,000 innovators and legal professionals use the platform, that it has been helping patent professionals since 1996, and that PatBase itself launched in 2003, so the operating history is long and stated. Corpus scale is quantified at more than 180 million publications across over 100 authorities. Support reach is described concretely at 15 or more languages across all time zones. A public product status page is maintained, which is a small but real piece of operational transparency few vendors in this lane offer. None of that is deployment evidence in the sense this axis tests. No customer is named anywhere on the surfaces read, no case study or customer story section appears in the navigation, no testimonial is attributed to a named individual or organization, and no figure is published for time saved, recall improved or cost reduced by any of the AI capabilities. The feature announcements describe benefits in the abstract, saying that a capability is faster or produces less noise, without measurement. The one third-party attested marker located, a corporate identity and registration number, evidences the company rather than the product. Verified 13 September 2026.

Confidentiality is asserted in general corporate terms and the question this product actually raises is unaddressed, which is the C band. What is published sits at company level: a privacy policy describing Clarivate as processor for customer-entered data with separate data processing agreements concluded with the controller, personnel bound by confidentiality terms, and service providers contractually held to the same standard. The published Clarivate Terms treat each party's confidential information as protected and define Clarivate IP as including confidential information and trade secrets. None of that addresses the specific exposure. AI Search works from free-text input, and the input the vendor invites is an invention disclosure, which is unpublished, novelty-destroying if it escapes, and often privileged in the hands of a patent attorney. Nothing published states whether a search query is stored, for how long, whether it is logged against a user or an organization, whether it is used to improve the model, or whether it is visible to Clarivate personnel. For a tool whose whole purpose is to be given an unfiled invention before anyone else sees it, that is the central confidentiality question and it is not answered anywhere located. Privilege and work product are not addressed. No model provider position exists because no provider is named. Retention and deletion are unstated. Recorded as a retrieval limit rather than an absence: the confidentiality section of the current Clarivate Terms was not recovered through the R8 ladder. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments, several of them contractual, defeated on the limbs the A band names, which is the B band. The commitments are unusually direct for a vendor of this size and they come from two independent places. On the product surfaces: customer data is never used to train models, searches and results are stated to belong to the customer, and the platform is described as a private cloud with data stored securely and privately in compliance with data protection law. In the published agreement: clause 19 imposes a mutual confidentiality obligation surviving five years beyond termination, restricts use of the other party's confidential information to performance of the agreement, and requires notice before any legally compelled disclosure so far as the law permits, which is graded on its own signal. Clause 20 commits both parties to the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. Clause 4 gives the customer a right to retain an archive copy of retrieved information for twelve months after termination. Three limbs fail. Privilege and work product are not addressed by name, which forecloses A on its own. No model provider is identified for the generative features. And no retention or deletion position is published for the customer's own searches, queries or Document Chat exchanges, which is the material a competitor would most want. Verified 13 September 2026.

A boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in decision terms, which is the C band. The disclaimer is real and is contractual: the Clarivate Terms disclaim all warranties other than those expressly stated, naming accuracy, completeness and currentness among the excluded ones, which on a prior art database is a pointed exclusion because those three properties are exactly what a searcher relies on. Against that, the product is marketed in the language of professional determinations rather than of information retrieval: enabling IP professionals to make reliable innovation decisions, supporting accurate first-pass patentability searches, informing freedom-to-operate opinions, and helping users assess patentability with speed and confidence. Freedom-to-operate opinions and patentability assessments are legal work product, and the marketing places the tool inside them. The audience is not ambiguous, which is what keeps this off the floor: the vendor names patent researchers, patent attorneys and other IP and R&D professionals, so it is explicit that non-lawyers are intended users too. What the higher bands require is absent. Nothing published addresses where the tool's output stops and professional judgment begins, no supervision or competence dimension is offered, no statement addresses an R&D user relying on an AI Search result without counsel, and no jurisdiction or professional rule is named. Verified 13 September 2026.

A contractual disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in decision terms and the audience reaches beyond lawyers, which is the C band. The disclaimer is real and is contractual rather than a website footer: clause 11 provides the Product and the Information are supplied as is, disclaims any warranty that the Information is accurate or complete, and states the licensor does not guarantee accuracy or accept liability for the consequences of use. Clause 10 adds that features dependent on public patent office services are outside the licensor's control and no responsibility is taken for the successful retrieval of Information, which is a pointed disclaimer on a prior art tool. Against that the product is marketed for freedom-to-operate analysis, patent due diligence and invalidity screening, all of which produce legal conclusions, and the vendor addresses legal teams, IP experts, professional searchers and R&D teams together, so non-lawyers are expressly among the intended users. Nothing published bridges the two. No statement addresses where the tool's output stops and professional judgment begins, no supervision or competence dimension is offered, no rule of professional conduct or bar authority is named in any jurisdiction, and nothing addresses an R&D user acting on a Document Chat answer about claim scope without counsel. Verified 13 September 2026.

Governance is described as a structure under construction, with no mechanism, owner or testing disclosed, which is the C band. What exists is a corporate-level statement rather than a product one: Clarivate reports multi-functional committees collaborating on a comprehensive AI Governance Framework, with those committees guiding segment leaders as generative AI is woven into product offerings. That is more than nothing, because it identifies a governance structure and locates responsibility with named committees rather than with no one, but it describes a framework being built rather than one that governs. Nothing else was located. No AI principles or responsible-AI page exists on the product estate, no individual or function is named as accountable for model behavior, no pre-release testing regime is described, and no evaluation result is disclosed. Bias is not addressed in any form. That omission is worth naming precisely on this product rather than generically: AI Search is trained on DWPI, a corpus written by human editors, so any systematic tendency in that editorial output, whether toward particular technology areas, jurisdictions or drafting conventions, would propagate into what the model retrieves. The vendor markets the DWPI-trained provenance as the product's central advantage and publishes nothing about testing whether the model inherits the index's blind spots as well as its strengths. R16 is noted: nothing connects the corporate framework to this product in scope terms. Verified 13 September 2026.

Individual AI commitments are published without any governing framework behind them, which is the C band. What exists is a set of true and useful statements rather than a program. Customer data is never used to train models. Processing takes place in a private cloud on UK-based servers. Data centers are said to meet ISO 27001. AI Explain is presented explicitly as a transparency feature, and the autumn 2025 release framed a group of changes around enhancing transparency, so the vendor does think about explainability as a design goal and ships features that serve it. Beyond that the governance layer is absent. No AI policy or responsible-AI page was located in the site navigation, and the dedicated AI section of the estate was not read and is named as the surface most likely to change this grade. No framework is adopted or cited, no individual, committee or function is named as accountable for model behavior, no pre-release testing regime is described and no evaluation result is published. Bias is not addressed in any form, which is worth naming on this product specifically because the alert classifier is trained on an individual user's own prior selections, a design that by construction reinforces what that user has already chosen to look at, and nothing published addresses the narrowing that invites. Verified 13 September 2026.

A corporate security program is published without addressing what happens to what a user puts into the product, which is the C band. The program is real. Clarivate publishes an Information Security Program page stating that the ISO 27000 family, and ISO/IEC 27001 specifically, forms the basis of its information security management system, with documented policies, standards and controls conforming to that standard and an in-house team covering cloud, application and information security. A Trust Center brings together information security, privacy and security compliance material, and a defined incident response process is stated: identify, investigate, contain, and take corrective action based on severity and impact. Staff are subject to a code of conduct. What is not published is anything product-specific about data handling. No retention period for search queries, no deletion commitment, no statement of whether AI Search inputs are logged or reused, no subprocessor list, and no description of access controls within the product. The gap matters here because the input is an invention disclosure. Two things are recorded and expressly not credited under R16 and ground rules section 3: the detailed certification and penetration-testing material published under the Clarivate umbrella belongs to Ex Libris, a different business unit serving libraries and academia, and nothing connects it to this product; and the Trust Center states plainly that specific certifications and reports may vary by product and environment. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published policy across most limbs, short of the full set, which is the B band. The data position is stated plainly and repeatedly across the product estate: customer data is never used to train models, searches and results belong to the customer, information is stored securely and privately within a private cloud, and servers are located in the United Kingdom. Security certification is claimed against ISO 27001 for the data centers, and the agreement adds obligations on both sides, clause 6 making the customer responsible for the security of issued User IDs and requiring immediate notification of any unauthorised usage, with a reciprocal audit right for the licensor on seven days' notice. Clause 19 carries a five-year confidentiality tail and clause 20 commits to the UK Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR. A public product status page is maintained, giving customers visibility of availability without asking. Three limbs fail. No subprocessor list is published, and the one third party identified anywhere, RWS as machine translation partner, is named in a development context rather than as a processor of customer data. No retention period or deletion commitment is published for searches, queries or Document Chat exchanges. And no incident or breach notification commitment to customers was located, the agreement placing the notification duty on the customer and not reciprocating. Verified 13 September 2026.

A real published position on liability, short of the full picture, which is the B band. The Clarivate Terms are published and address the commercial limbs directly. Warranties exist rather than being wholly disclaimed: stated warranties plus any product-specific warranties included in the order are identified as the exclusive warranties, with everything else excluded, and remedies are specified rather than left open. For software, if a valid warranty claim cannot be rectified within a reasonable period the customer may cancel the license by written notice and receive a refund calculated on five-year straight-line depreciation from the order's effective date; for professional services, Clarivate will rectify on written notice. Liability is capped and the cap is drawn precisely: aggregate liability of each party, and of Clarivate's third-party providers, for all claims including breach of statutory duty, tort and negligence, is limited to actual direct damages up to the amounts payable in the twelve months before the first incident, measured against the specific Product that is the subject of the claim. Excluded losses are mutual, covering lost profits, business, revenue, anticipated savings, data and goodwill, and indirect or consequential loss. What is absent keeps it off A. The disclaimer expressly excludes warranties of accuracy, completeness and currentness, which are the properties a prior art search rests on; no AI-specific provision was located; no vendor indemnity was located; and no insurance position is published. Verified 13 September 2026.

A published agreement addressing every commercial limb the axis tests, short of anything AI-specific, which is the B band and the strongest liability position in this lane. The agreement is published in full as a downloadable document, ungated, and it is short enough to read, which by itself distinguishes it from the three comparators in this lane whose terms could not be recovered at all. An express warranty exists and is not swallowed by the disclaimer that follows it: clause 11 warrants that the Product will operate materially in accordance with its description or technical specification, before disclaiming all other warranties. Liability is capped at the license fee paid in the preceding twelve months, with the usual exclusions for loss of profits, revenue or business and for indirect, consequential, special, punitive or exemplary loss. And a vendor indemnity is given rather than withheld: clause 13 requires the licensor to indemnify the customer against all claims, damages and expenses arising from a claim that the Product infringes a third party's intellectual property rights, subject only to notice, control of defense and no-admissions conditions, with a reciprocal customer indemnity for use of the Product. Termination runs on material breach with fourteen days to remedy, and English law and courts govern. What is absent is any AI provision at all. Nothing addresses the accuracy of a generated answer, nothing allocates risk for a decision taken on one, and no insurance position is published. Verified 13 September 2026.

Integration is claimed and the mechanism is named without a documented catalog or configuration detail, which is the C band. What is established comes mostly from the agreement rather than from a product surface, which is itself telling. The Clarivate Terms contemplate that Licensed Information may be made available by API or data feed, subject to information service terms, and that APIs may be offered to configure hosted and installed software or to allow it to interoperate with third-party programs, described as Client Configurations, with API and data feed keys not to be shared, used across multiple interfaces, or used to mimic Clarivate functionality. So an API exists and its commercial boundaries are published. Within the product, integration is largely internal: DWPI and the citation index are integrated with patent full text from multiple authorities including machine translations for China, Korea and Japan, and litigation data is correlated in from Darts-ip. What the higher bands require was not established. No connector catalog or developer documentation was reached, no direction of flow is described for any connection, and not one external system is named as supported, which is a real gap given that the buyer typically also runs an IP management or docketing system and Clarivate itself sells adjacent IP products. The estate returned a bot-detection block and the integration surfaces were not recovered through the R8 ladder. Verified 13 September 2026.

Integration surfaces are named as products without documentation or a named external system, which is the C band. What is established is that routes out of the platform exist and are sold as such. A Patent Data API is published as a product line in its own right, so programmatic access is offered rather than merely implied. The estate lists an MCP entry among its AI applications, which if shipped would let a customer's own assistant call the platform, and under ground rules section 3 that is extensibility rather than model choice; it is recorded here and expressly not credited, because the page was not read and the estate simultaneously advertises an early-access program for an agentic tool, so whether MCP is generally available or part of that program is unresolved. Within the suite, PatBase sits alongside Minesoft Origin, PatDocs and ChemX, and analytics output including charts, diagrams, heat maps and clusters can be exported and shared. What the higher bands require was not established. No connector catalog is published, not one external system is named as supported, no API documentation was reached, and nothing describes how results or portfolio data would reach a docketing or IP management system. The API and MCP pages are named as what would move this row. Verified 13 September 2026.

Cloud delivery is evident and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated, which is the C band, both co-equal limbs being absent. The product is a hosted browser-based research application, described by the vendor as a proprietary patent research application accessed through the Clarivate platform and licensed by subscription, with the Clarivate Terms distinguishing hosted software from installed software and contemplating both. So the delivery model is clear enough. Everything a buyer with constraints would ask is not. No data center region is named for this product, no country of processing is stated, no regional election is offered, and nothing describes whether a customer's saved searches, alerts and work files sit in a shared or isolated environment. No single-tenant, private or on-premises option is offered or refused. Recorded and expressly not credited under R16 and ground rules section 3: Clarivate publishes detailed data center and residency material covering the United States, Europe and Asia Pacific, but it belongs to Ex Libris, a separate business unit serving libraries and academia, and no scope statement connects it to Derwent. The Trust Center itself makes the point, stating that specific certifications and reports may vary by product and environment and directing buyers to an account representative for product-specific documentation. Verified 13 September 2026.

Both co-equal limbs are addressed at least in outline, which places this comfortably in the B band and above most of its lane. Region is stated first-party and repeated across the estate: the servers are based in the United Kingdom, offered as a reason a customer's data is secure. For a European buyer with residency obligations that is a direct answer, and for a buyer needing United States or Asian residency it is an equally clear one in the other direction, which is the point of the axis. Tenancy is addressed in substance if not in architectural terms: the platform is described as a private cloud, with a customer's searches and results characterized as their own and held within it, and the 2020 platform rebuild is described as a cloud implementation led by RWS aimed at resilience and security. Data centers are stated to meet ISO 27001. What is not published keeps it off A. No deployment options are offered or refused, so nothing states whether a single-tenant, private or on-premises arrangement is available to an enterprise that needs one, and no alternative region is offered for customers who cannot use United Kingdom hosting. The private cloud description states an outcome rather than an architecture, and nothing sets out how separation between customers is achieved or assured. No data center operator is named. Verified 13 September 2026.

Certification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence and short of any scope covering this product, which is the B band. A named standard is claimed at company level and claimed properly: Clarivate states it has adopted the ISO 27000 family, and ISO/IEC 27001 specifically, as the basis of its information security management system, with policies, standards and controls documented and implemented to conform to it, and its trust material states that the security program aligns with ISO 27001 and SOC 2, standards it describes as requiring documented controls, independent audits and continuous improvement. A Trust Center exists and is public, gathering information security, privacy and security compliance in one place. Two things prevent A, and the vendor states the first itself. Scope is not published per product: the Trust Center says specific certifications and reports may vary by product and environment and directs buyers to contact an account representative for product-specific security documentation, so a buyer cannot establish from public material whether Derwent Patent Search sits inside any certification boundary. And no report, certificate, audit period or auditor is obtainable without that conversation, which is the sales-gated tier. Recorded and not credited: the specific certifications set out in detail on the Clarivate estate, covering ISO 22301, 27001, 27017, 27018, 27032 and 27701, are Ex Libris's and no connector reaches this product. Verified 13 September 2026.

A standard is named and the claim is made in terms that leave its subject unclear, with no scope, date or evidence, which is the C band. The sentence is the whole of the disclosure and it repays close reading: the vendor's commitment to security is said to be backed by ISO 27001 certification, ensuring that its data centers adhere to international information security standards. Read strictly, the certification is attached to the data centers rather than to Minesoft's own information security management system, which raises the question ground rules section 3 exists for, since a hosting provider's certification is infrastructure and does not attest to the vendor's own controls. Nothing published resolves which is meant. Beyond that ambiguity, none of the supporting material a buyer would use is present: no certificate number, no certification body, no issue or expiry date, no statement of the scope covered, and no route to obtain the certificate or any report. No trust center or security documentation page exists in the site navigation. What sits alongside is real but is practice rather than attestation, being the private cloud description, the United Kingdom server location, and the User ID security and audit provisions of clause 6 of the agreement. The distance to a better grade is small and entirely within the vendor's control, which the note records because it is the honest reading. Verified 13 September 2026.

The architecture is described without the providers, which the B band names expressly as one of its two shapes. What is disclosed is more than most records manage on the training side and nothing at all on the supply side. The architecture is stated: AI Search uses a language transformer model, described elsewhere on the estate as a large-language AI model. The training corpus is named precisely and is the point of the product: the model is trained and powered by DWPI, the vendor's own editorially curated index, and the vendor markets it as the only AI patent search trained on that data, explaining that this is what lets it recognize related concepts across patent publications. Being able to name what a model was trained on, and for that corpus to be a proprietary asset the vendor controls, is a genuinely strong disclosure and is rare in this corpus. What is missing is everything downstream of that. No model is named, no version or family is given, no provider is identified, nothing states whether the model was built in-house or licensed and fine-tuned, nothing says where inference runs, and no commitment exists to notify customers if any of it changes. The same silence covers the other AI capabilities: data enrichment, Optimized Assignee and legal status prediction are each described as AI-derived with nothing said about what performs them. Under ground rules section 3 the DWPI training disclosure is spent here on architecture and is separately the substance of the corpus provenance row. Verified 13 September 2026.

The vendor describes AI capabilities by function without identifying what performs them, which is the C band. Seven distinct AI features are named and described: Document Chat, AI Explain, Smart Images, the trainable alert classifier, natural-language query expansion with relevance scoring, the Smart Claims viewer and machine translation. For each, what it does is clear and how it is built is not. No model is named, no version is given, no architecture is described beyond references to AI-based image recognition and AI-enabled claim recognition, and no provider is identified for the generative component, which matters most on Document Chat because generated answers about a patent are where a third-party foundation model would ordinarily sit. Nothing states where inference runs relative to the United Kingdom servers the vendor otherwise emphasizes, what any provider retains of a question put to Document Chat, or whether a customer would be told if an underlying model changed. Clause 10 of the agreement runs the other way, reserving the right to change or modify the Product and its features without notice. One third party is named and is credited here as far as it goes: RWS, the translation company that co-develops the platform, is identified as the machine translation partner and is said to be continuously improving translation quality. That is a named supplier performing a named function, which is real disclosure, and it covers translation only. Verified 13 September 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, which is the D band. The page inventory was taken from the product estate recovered through the R8 ladder and from the site's own navigation: product pages for patent search and adjacent Derwent offerings, a landing page for the current release, the legal center, the trust center and the newsroom. There is no pricing page. The only commercial route on the product page is a free trial request form, and the wider estate resolves to contact and demonstration requests. Nothing published states the charging model, so a buyer cannot establish even the shape of it: not whether the subscription is priced per named user, per concurrent seat, per module, by search volume or by corpus coverage, and not what the AI Search capability costs relative to the base platform or whether it is included. The Clarivate Terms confirm that fees sit in an order form or ordering document rather than anywhere public, and add a term worth naming because it bears on what a buyer can compare: the agreement treats pricing and discounts as confidential information the customer must not disclose. Under R10's closing discipline no structure means no row, so no VendorPricing row is written. Recorded and not credited: a third-party listing states that no pricing is published and that buyers must contact the vendor, which corroborates rather than establishes the absence. Verified 13 September 2026.

The unit and structure of charging are published in the agreement while no figure appears anywhere, which is the C band and lifts this off the floor. The published terms set out the commercial mechanics with precision, and a buyer can establish the shape of the deal before speaking to anyone. Licensing is per User ID, with additional User IDs added on written request, co-terminous with the existing term and charged pro rata by the month in which they are added. The term is twelve months unless the Product Terms say otherwise, renewing automatically for further one-year periods unless either party gives thirty days' written notice. Invoicing is annual in advance. Late payment attracts interest at eight percent above the Bank of England base rate together with collection costs, and the licensor may suspend access without notice while payment is outstanding. Clause 17 provides that Product Terms prevail over the general Terms in a conflict, so a buyer knows where the commercial specifics will live. What is absent is any number. No price, band, minimum or indicative range appears on the estate, and the only route published is a demonstration request. The test is mechanical: this evidence lifts the axis above D, so a VendorPricing row is owed, written with entryPriceUsd null. Verified 13 September 2026.

Coverage is described with real substance and quantified precisely, with the boundaries left open, which is the B band. Jurisdictional coverage is stated with more precision than anywhere else in this lane, and each figure is separately scoped rather than rolled into one claim: DWPI curation across 60 jurisdictions and 132 million patents, enhanced full text from 76 jurisdictions, bibliographic data from 109, more than 178 million patent publications, and correlated litigation case data from more than 140 jurisdictions. Language coverage is addressed through machine translation and full-text integration for major authorities including China, Korea and Japan, with the interface available in Chinese, English, Japanese and Korean. Buyer coverage is named rather than implied, the vendor identifying patent researchers, patent attorneys and other IP and R&D professionals, and evidencing the institutional end with 40 global patent and trademark offices. Use cases are enumerated: patentability, freedom to operate, invalidity, prosecution, portfolio monitoring, licensing and monetization, and litigation support. What is left open is the limit in every direction. No technology area is named as better or worse covered, and the 41 new DWPI manual codes added for emerging areas imply the taxonomy lags new fields without saying by how much. No customer size floor is stated, and nothing distinguishes what this product covers from the adjacent Derwent Patent Monitor. Verified 13 September 2026.

Coverage is described with real substance across data, jurisdictions and workflows, with the boundaries left open, which is the B band. Corpus coverage is quantified at more than 180 million publications from over 100 issuing authorities, with full-text coverage of the major jurisdictions, family-level and publication-level organization and a live feed of new documents subject to daily quality checking. Language coverage is addressed through machine translation embedded in search and review, often available the same day as a new document, which for cross-border prior art is coverage in the operative sense. One area is covered in unusual and recent detail: standard-essential patent work, where a spring 2026 release added fourteen standard-setting organizations by name, being IEEE, ISO, CCSA, OMA, IMT, OneM2M, TIA, ATIS, ITU-T, ITU-R, IEC, IETF, ANSI and TTA, with dedicated search syntax and new source and company columns. Workflow coverage is published as named use cases across search, monitoring, collaboration, due diligence, freedom to operate, competitor intelligence and technology landscaping, and buyer coverage names IP experts, legal teams, R&D teams and professional searchers, supported in fifteen or more languages. What is left open is every limit. No jurisdiction is identified as thinly covered among the hundred, no technology area is named as better or worse served, and nothing states coverage dates or backfile depth. Verified 13 September 2026.