Patent Bots vs Solve Intelligence: how they compare in 2026
Solve Intelligence sells generative drafting at full scale, and Patent Bots sells a toolkit in which generative drafting is one part. Solve drafts complete patent applications for any technology or practice group, drafts responses, arguments and amendments for any patent office, and flags drafting errors before filing. Its charts cover invalidity and infringement with supporting evidence. Customers choose the jurisdiction where data is stored and processed and control zero retention at the model providers, and Solve reports more than 103,000 office action responses created. Patent Bots runs as a Word add in and web app built for United States practice. Rule based proofreading, office action and IDS tools, examiner statistics and an art unit predictor sit around a generative assistant that drafts sections and stays off until an administrator turns it on. Patent Bots publishes prices, from $65 a month for a solo firm. Solve suits teams that want AI to draft whole applications and responses across offices. Patent Bots suits United States prosecutors who want checks, forms and examiner data with lighter drafting help.
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 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.
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.
Solve's 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.
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.
Solve works as a copilot inside a document editor: 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.
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.
Solve names its customers 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.
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.
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.
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.
Solve gives no legal advice, 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.
No AI policy, principles, testing method or accountable owner is published for the generative features or the art unit model. Controls are product facts rather than governance: generative features are off by default and switched on by an administrator, and model providers may not train on customer data. Nothing addresses uneven output across technology areas or art units.
AI 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Solve's home page shows Microsoft Word, Microsoft SharePoint, NetDocuments, Google Drive and Anthropic as integrations, and 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Solve serves law firms, in house IP teams and companies, and reports more than 700 IP teams on six continents. 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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Solve sandboxes customer data to each user and separates it 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?
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.
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?
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.
Solve's 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?
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.
Solve puts case law and MPEP provisions inside its prosecution tools and cites sources in its responses and charts. 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?
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.
Solve's review module catches drafting errors before filing, and its 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 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 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?
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.
Solve's terms require customers to use the service in line with applicable rules and professional standards, and 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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Patent Bots if
- Most of your work is United States prosecution. Patent Bots builds its forms, statistics and office action tools around USPTO practice.
- Your attorneys draft in Word. Prep & Pros Pro runs as a Word add in, with proofreading results and generated sections inside the document.
- You want published prices. Patent Bots lists firm, company and individual pricing, and company packages start at a $2,999 yearly minimum.
Choose Solve Intelligence if
- You want AI to draft whole applications. Solve drafts complete patent applications for any technology or practice group.
- Your filings span several offices. Solve drafts responses, arguments and amendments for any patent office.
- Data must stay in a chosen jurisdiction. Solve lets customers pick where data is stored and processed, such as the United States or Europe, and control zero retention at each model provider.
In summary
Patent Bots
Founded by a patent attorney in 2018, Patent Bots sells proofreading, drafting, office action and research tools to patent law firms and in house IP teams. Prep & Pros Pro works in Word or the browser, and Art Unit Predictor, examiner statistics, PatentPlex and PatentLink cover prosecution research and portfolio lists. According to the AI Legal Index, Patent Bots' generative features run on Anthropic models through AWS Bedrock with zero data retention.
Solve Intelligence
Solve Intelligence was founded in 2023 and is based in the United Kingdom, with offices in New York and Munich. It sells AI for patent drafting, prosecution, claim charting and portfolio work to law firms and in house IP teams. It drafts applications and office action responses, matches an attorney's style and builds evidence backed invalidity and infringement charts. Solve lets customers choose a United States or EU deployment for storage and processing, runs its model providers under zero data retention agreements, and holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification.
Questions buyers ask
How much of an application do Solve and Patent Bots draft?
Solve drafts complete applications for any technology or practice group. Patent Bots drafts sections, such as figure descriptions and claim summaries, through a chat assistant and prompt library inside the attorney's document. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where is data processed for Solve and Patent Bots?
Solve customers choose the jurisdiction, for example the United States or Europe, and data stays there. Patent Bots processes and stores all data in the United States. 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 charts invalidity or infringement?
Solve builds evidence backed invalidity charts and infringement charts from public evidence. Patent Bots generates a Word claim chart with one row per claim 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.
Does either check a draft for errors?
Solve flags drafting errors and likely issues before filing. Patent Bots proofreads antecedent basis, claim numbering, word support, reference labels and limiting words, and checks claim markup against the prior version. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Solve and Patent Bots report about results?
Solve reports more than 103,000 office action responses created and average workload savings above 50%. Patent Bots says 45 of the top 100 patent law firms use it and that its drafting tools save 6 to 12 hours per patent. 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.
Solve Intelligence is headquartered in the United Kingdom. Patent Bots is made by Patent Bots, Inc., which publishes its own comparison of patent drafting tools that includes Solve Intelligence. Neither vendor reviewed this page.