Patent Bots vs Patlytics: how they compare in 2026
Patent Bots and Patlytics overlap only at drafting and prosecution, and each reaches beyond it in a different direction. Patlytics runs patent work in one AI platform. It covers invention disclosures, drafting, office action analysis, prior art search, infringement detection with automatic claim charts, invalidity and portfolio tools, passing results from one module to the next. Its own example is an Am Law 100 group that ran a 120 patent project in 20 hours instead of 100. Patent Bots stays with preparation and prosecution. It proofreads and drafts in Word, handles office action paperwork and IDS forms, and adds examiner statistics, an art unit predictor and firm quality rankings. Its generative features are off by default and run on Anthropic models through AWS Bedrock, and its prices are published, from $65 a month for a solo firm's main tool. Patlytics suits IP groups that move between prosecution, licensing and litigation analysis. Patent Bots suits prosecution teams that want proofreading, forms and examiner data from one subscription.
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.
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.
Every Patlytics module is model output. Its modules break claims into elements, find public material showing that products practice them, build cited infringement, invalidity and essentiality charts, and construe claims from the prosecution history. They also rank portfolios against competitors' products and draft applications and office action responses. A patent agent with more than 200 skills reasons over the results and packages them as emails, Word files or spreadsheets. Patlytics says its models are fine tuned on more than 50 million public patents, and its subprocessors include OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini. Without the models, Patlytics has no product.
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.
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.
Every claim chart cell in Patlytics cites its source, with pin cites to paragraphs, columns and figures in invalidity charts and to the public material behind each infringement match. Patlytics says it audits sources for relevance and shows color coded confidence indicators. It claims 99 percent or better verbatim excerpt accuracy and says its models are built to guard against hallucinations, without describing a test set or naming failure modes.
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.
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.
The Patlytics agent suggests edits line by line for the user to accept or reject, and Patlytics says every step ends with the user's approval. Claim charts mark each element as a match or for review, and freedom to operate output is framed for review before a product ships. The terms require customers to evaluate all output for accuracy and completeness before relying on it. Patlytics plans autonomous agents for drafting and research, and nothing states what any agent may complete without approval or where it stops.
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.
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.
Quinn Emanuel partner Yury Kapgan describes using Patlytics for infringement analysis, prior art, invalidity contentions, claim construction and charting. Patlytics announced adoptions by Foley & Lardner and Aspen Aerogels in November and December 2025. Asahi Kasei's Naoto Hori reports infringement investigations cut from months to hours, and $1,000 to $5,000 saved per detection report. An unnamed Am Law 100 practice group cut a 120 patent project from 100 hours to 20, turning a $47,500 cost into $38,000 of margin. An unnamed biotech saves $5,000 to $7,500 per application, and Rivian, Polsinelli, Cleary Gottlieb, Wiggin and Dana, Repligen and Klein Tools also appear as customers. The case studies are undated and give the customers' own estimates without a method. Patlytics reports 55 percent of the Am Law 100 on the platform, against 40 percent in April 2026.
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.
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.
Training on customer materials is barred by Patlytics' terms, which also keep usage data free of customer materials and require deletion of confidential information after the agreement ends. Customer data is siloed and segregated by organization, encrypted, and reached through least privilege access. Patlytics' March 2026 checklist for practitioners covers Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6, the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and the section 102 prior disclosure bars. That checklist asks whether work product is segregated by project and client matter, and Patlytics does not say that its own product segregates that way. The terms do not address privilege or how the model providers handle customer data.
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.
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.
Patlytics' terms describe the service as a tool and supporting resource for patent work that gives no legal advice and no guidance on professional or ethical duties to clients. Customers and their users remain solely responsible for evaluating, verifying and applying professional judgment to all AI output. Authorized users must be the customer's employees unless an order form allows otherwise. Patlytics' March 2026 checklist for practitioners covers confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 and competence under Model Rule 1.1. 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.
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.
Patlytics holds ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification for its AI management system, and its trust center offers the certificate and full audit report through an access request. Controls listed there include a documented board charter and control self assessments. Patlytics claims 99 percent or better verbatim excerpt accuracy and says outputs carry source auditing and confidence indicators, but publishes no test method or result. No accountable owner for the models is named, and nothing is disclosed about uneven output across technical fields, jurisdictions or claim types.
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.
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.
Data is encrypted at rest and in transit, with AES 256 for files in My Drive, and access follows least privilege. User history is kept for 90 days and can be deleted, and the terms require deletion of the customer's confidential information promptly after the agreement ends. Deletion of customer data on exit is among its listed controls, and nine subprocessors appear with roles and regions, all in the United States. Systems are monitored around the clock with on call staff in North America and Asia Pacific, and databases replicate to a secondary data center. Patlytics publishes no incident notification commitment or breach timeline.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Section 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.
Under terms updated 27 August 2025, Patlytics gives an indemnity against third party claims that the platform's underlying software infringes intellectual property. Output generated from customer inputs or specifications, and use in combination with other products, is excluded. Remedies are a license, a modification or replacement, or termination with a pro rata refund of prepaid fees. Liability is capped at fees paid in the prior 12 months, with indemnity obligations outside the cap and consequential damages excluded. Patlytics warrants professional work by skilled staff and no malicious code, gives no warranty on the accuracy of AI output, and leaves reliance on output to the customer. A cybersecurity insurance document sits on its trust center behind an access request, and the terms promise no insurance.
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.
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.
Patlytics' plugin for ChatGPT Enterprise, built on Patlytics MCP, gives existing customers five read only tools. They cover semantic patent retrieval, patent lookup with full claims, non patent literature, the organization's private portfolios and its Patent Vault. Each user signs in with a Patlytics account, and results stay scoped to the organization. RPX Empower partnered with Patlytics in February 2026, and a Relativity integration has a waitlist after Relativity's investment. The agent exports Word and Excel files. No docketing, IP management or document 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.
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.
Patlytics runs as a cloud service on Amazon Web Services across multiple United States regions, with Auth0 and Datadog also in the United States. Its language model providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini, and its document parser, Reducto, are listed in the United States. Databases replicate in real time to a secondary data center. No customer choice of region, single tenant option or on premises deployment is published.
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.
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.
Patlytics' trust center offers its ISO 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certificates and full reports and its SOC 2 Type 2 report through an access request. A penetration test summary, a security overview, its cybersecurity insurance and its policies sit behind the same request. NCC Group and A-LIGN are named as its penetration testers. Controls listed openly include encryption key restrictions, firewall access limits, background checks, vulnerability monitoring and deletion of customer data on exit. Report dates and auditors 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.
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.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google's Gemini are Patlytics' language model subprocessors, with Reducto for AI document parsing, each in the United States. Patlytics says its own models are fine tuned on more than 50 million public patents. No model or version is named for any module, and no notice is promised when a provider changes. Its ChatGPT plugin, launched on 17 September 2026, keeps zero data retention through the integration.
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.
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.
No price, tier or unit of charge is published. Patlytics' terms put fees in an order form, with annual renewals, 60 days' notice before a renewal increase, and no refund of fees paid. Patlytics states its value in savings instead, claiming claim charts that once took more than $30,000 of attorney time finished for a fraction of that.
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.
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.
Patlytics serves law firms and in house IP teams, and limits authorized users to the customer's employees unless an order form says otherwise. Modules cover infringement, invalidity, freedom to operate across jurisdictions, portfolio analysis, claim construction, drafting, office actions and invention disclosures. Standard essential patent work spans cellular, wireless, video and audio coding and memory standards, and life sciences drafting adds sequence listings and chemical structures. Patlytics cites more than 130 million patents and 300 million literature items, while its invalidity page gives 70 million patent publications and 250 million non patent publications. No list of patent offices or date range is given for the collection.
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?
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.
No customer materials go into training any AI model or system, Patlytics' terms state, and the usage data it may use to improve the service excludes customer materials. Its security page guarantees that customer data is not used to train or tune models. An FAQ answer on the same page says information is not used for training without explicit consent or necessity, a weaker wording than the contract.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
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.
User history is kept for 90 days and the customer can delete it. The terms require deletion of the other party's confidential information promptly after the agreement ends, and deletion on exit is among the controls Patlytics lists. Whether uploaded documents and generated charts follow the 90 day period is not stated. The ChatGPT plugin carries zero data retention.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
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.
Patlytics keeps customer data siloed and segregated by organization, and access follows least privilege. Separation between matters or clients inside one firm is not described, although Patlytics' own March 2026 checklist asks vendors whether work product is segregated by project and client matter.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
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.
Under Patlytics' terms, a party compelled by a judicial or governmental order may disclose confidential information after giving the other party reasonable prior notice so it can contest the order. 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?
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.
Patlytics cites more than 130 million patents and 300 million literature items, with prosecution histories preloaded, and its invalidity page gives 70 million patent publications and 250 million non patent publications. Standards documents for essentiality charts are indexed and kept current. No data source or license basis is named, and no office list or date range is given for the collection.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
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.
Patlytics preloads prosecution histories and builds claim construction from them. Nothing describes tracking whether a patent in an analysis is in force, expired, lapsed or invalidated, or a check of cited case law.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
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.
Patlytics attaches color coded confidence indicators to its output and audits sources for relevance, and retrieval results show a relevance percentage for each reference. Infringement charts mark elements that need review. What the system does when no material supports a claim element, or whether it declines to chart, is not described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, 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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for Patlytics. Patlytics produces infringement and invalidity charts used in litigation, and drafts patent applications.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
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.
Patlytics' March 2026 checklist for practitioners cites the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 CFR, Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6, the section 102 prior disclosure bars and state bar competence duties. It names no ethics opinion, and the terms say the output gives no guidance on professional or ethical obligations to clients.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
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.
Patlytics claims project time cut by up to 90 percent, and claim charts that once took more than $30,000 of attorney time finished for a fraction of that. Its studies cite $1,000 to $5,000 saved per detection report, $5,000 to $7,500 per application, and $38,000 of margin on one Am Law 100 project. How AI assisted charting or drafting should appear on a client's bill is not addressed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
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.
Nine subprocessors appear on Patlytics' trust center, all in the United States. Amazon Web Services hosts the service, OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini for Workspace Studio supply language models, and Reducto parses documents, beside Auth0, Datadog, FullStory and Postmark. The SOC 2 Type 2 report, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certificates and reports, a penetration test summary and an insurance document 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?
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.
Every cell in a Patlytics claim chart cites its source, invalidity charts pin cite paragraphs, columns and figures, and infringement charts mark each element as a match or for review. Users accept or reject agent edits line by line. Nothing records which model produced an output, or that an attorney adopted a mapping before it was served or filed.
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 Patent Bots if
- Your work is mostly prosecution. Patent Bots concentrates on drafting, proofreading, office action responses, IDS forms and USPTO paperwork.
- You want to steer an application's art unit. Art Unit Predictor ranks the likely art units and highlights the claim words pulling toward each.
- Small teams need a low entry price. A single practitioner at a law firm can buy Prep & Pros Pro for $702 a year.
Choose Patlytics if
- Licensing and enforcement sit beside prosecution. Patlytics detects likely infringement and generates claim charts that map each element to evidence.
- One analysis should feed the next step. Patlytics passes findings between its invalidity, invention disclosure and drafting modules.
- Measured project results matter to your partners. Patlytics cites an Am Law 100 group that cut a 120 patent project from 100 hours to 20.
In summary
Patent Bots
Patent Bots is a patent prosecution suite from Patent Bots, Inc., built around Prep & Pros Pro for proofreading and drafting in Microsoft Word. Office Action Explorer, response shells, IDS forms and USPTO forms cut prosecution paperwork, while examiner statistics and Art Unit Predictor support strategy. According to the AI Legal Index, Patent Bots publishes prices for firms, companies and individual practitioners and offers a 14 day trial.
Patlytics
Patlytics is a New York company whose AI platform covers invention disclosures, drafting and prosecution, prior art search, infringement detection, claim charting, invalidity, freedom to operate and portfolio work for law firms and in house IP teams. Connected workflows pass results between modules, and claim charts cite their basis element by element. Patlytics holds SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certification, offers the reports through its trust center, and publishes no prices.
Questions buyers ask
Does Patent Bots chart infringement the way Patlytics does?
Not in the same way. Patlytics detects infringement and generates citation backed claim charts automatically. Patent Bots generates a Word claim chart for a patent's claims, one row per element, for the attorney to complete. 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 handles prior art?
Patlytics runs prior art search and invalidity analysis inside its platform. Patent Bots imports references already cited in a patent or its family into IDS forms. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Who uses Patent Bots and Patlytics?
Patent Bots says 45 of the top 100 patent law firms use it, with case studies from firms such as Young Basile and Edell, Shapiro & Finnan. Patlytics names Quinn Emanuel, Foley & Lardner, Rivian and Asahi Kasei among its customers and reports 55 percent of the Am Law 100 on its platform. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which helps with an office action?
Patent Bots builds response shells, summarizes claim status and lines up the office action, pending claims and prior art in one view. Patlytics lists office action analysis among its drafting and prosecution modules. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do Patent Bots and Patlytics publish prices?
Patent Bots publishes firm, company and individual prices and offers a 14 day trial. Patlytics does not publish prices. 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.
Patlytics is based in New York. Patent Bots is made by Patent Bots, Inc., which publishes its own comparison of patent drafting tools that includes Patlytics. Neither vendor reviewed this page.