C
ClaimMaster
ClaimMaster is a Microsoft Word add-in for patent attorneys, agents and paralegals that proofreads patent claims, specifications and Office Action responses, automates drafting of application sections, figures and flowcharts, and generates Office Action shells and USPTO forms, with tools for downloading USPTO and EPO data. Its +Drafting and +Shells add-ons connect the add-in to large language models (OpenAI GPT models, Anthropic Claude, private Azure OpenAI endpoints, or locally running models through Ollama) to draft and rewrite application text, describe figures and analyse Office Actions, using prompts enriched with text from the open document and a local document workspace for retrieval.
The add-in runs on the user's computer, and document text is sent to a model only on the user's command. It is published by ClaimMaster Software LLC, which describes itself as a small, independent company; its licence agreement is governed by Maryland law. It is sold per user, monthly or annually, with a 30-day free trial.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
The AI is an add-on layer on a product whose value stands without it, which is the C band. ClaimMaster's core is rule-based proofreading of claims, specifications and Office Action responses, template and NLP-based drafting of sections and flowcharts, Office Action shells, USPTO forms and patent data downloading, all of which run without a language model. The generative tools (drafting and rewriting text, figure descriptions, Office Action analysis and response generation, an LLM chat) come with the +Drafting and +Shells add-ons. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Grounding is described without source links or measurement, which is the C band. The vendor says its drafting tools use a local workspace of selected document sections for retrieval-augmented generation, that example documents can be supplied to reduce hallucinations, and that users should review responses for factual correctness, especially at higher creativity settings. Output does not cite the source passages it drew on, and no accuracy figure or test is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A written commitment that the drafter controls every AI step, with real review surfaces, short of a threshold or constraint on output, which is the B band. The help pages say GPT features transmit data only on the user's explicit command and that the user controls exactly what is sent; the guided drafting workflow lets the user preview and edit generated text before it is inserted, with a creativity setting for each prompt.
The user is the patent professional. R124(2) was applied: the explicit-command rule governs what data leaves the machine, not what the output may be used for. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Unattributed testimonials and scale claims stand in for evidence, which is the C band. The site quotes satisfied users and says thousands of customers use ClaimMaster globally, and a 2022 release claims 20 to 30 per cent drafting time saved per application; no named firm, dated result or method was located on the surfaces read. Verified 18 September 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.
Published commitments cover training, segregation, privilege, retention and the model provider position, which is the A band. The Security page says the add-in runs locally and never collects or transmits work product when proofreading, warrants that nothing is sent to a GPT service without the user's explicit direction, and gives the risk of waiving attorney-client privilege in cloud processing as the design reason.
The help pages say GPT calls go straight from the user's computer to OpenAI or Azure OpenAI with no intermediate servers, that API data is not used to improve the models and is kept at most 30 days for abuse monitoring, that ClaimMaster has not opted in to data sharing and never will, and that private endpoints and fully local models are available. These commitments sit on published pages rather than in the EULA. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
The audience is professional and the position on advice versus tooling is unstated, which is the C band (Reveal precedent). ClaimMaster is sold to patent attorneys, agents and paralegals; the EULA makes the user solely responsible for content created with the software, and the help pages tell users to review GPT responses for factual correctness. Nothing addresses competence or supervision duties, USPTO guidance on AI use, or jurisdiction. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No AI governance position was located, which is the D band. Searched the EULA, Security page, generative AI and drafting pages, help files and release notes on 18 September 2026. Nothing describes how the prompts and AI features are tested before release, who is accountable for them, or how output quality varies across technologies. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Published practice covering most of the ground, short of an incident practice, which is the B band. The vendor holds no customer documents because the add-in runs locally; GPT calls go directly to the provider, whose API retention (30 days for abuse monitoring) and no-training terms are stated; API keys for private models are stored encrypted with Windows cryptography libraries; private Azure endpoints and local models remove the provider from the path. No breach notification or incident practice was located. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
A published warranty and cap, short of standing behind output, which is the B band. The EULA warrants that the software conforms to its specifications for one year, with repair, replacement or refund as the remedy, and caps liability at the amounts paid; it disclaims accuracy and makes the user solely responsible for content created with the software and for indemnifying ClaimMaster against misuse. Nothing addresses AI-generated text specifically. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Real, documented integrations short of full depth, which is the B band. The product runs inside Microsoft Word, where drafting happens; its help file documents downloading of bibliographic data, file wrappers, family trees and PDFs from the USPTO Open Data Portal, Patent Center and EPO, and configuration of OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and local LLM endpoints. No docketing, document management or IP management system integration is described. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
The deployment model and processing location are stated, short of regions for the vendor-supplied model access, which is the B band. The add-in installs on each user's Windows computer and processes documents locally; shared server installs need separate licences; GPT calls go to OpenAI, to a customer's own Azure OpenAI endpoint, or to a model running on the user's machine. Where the complimentary model access provided to subscribers is hosted is not stated (R38). Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
No independent security attestation was located, which is the D band. The Security page argues that local execution avoids cloud risk and describes encrypted key storage, but names no SOC 2 report, ISO certification or audit. Searched the Security page, help files, EULA and release notes on 18 September 2026. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Models, providers and where they run are named, short of a commitment to notify changes, which is the B band. The vendor names OpenAI GPT-5 and GPT-4o, Anthropic Claude 4.5, Azure OpenAI endpoints and local models such as gpt-oss, Llama 3 and Mistral through Ollama, and says cloud calls go directly from the user's computer to the provider with no intermediate servers. Model changes appear in release notes, but no notice of changes is committed. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
The unit and structure are published while the figures could not be read, which holds the row at the B band (R10). The pricing page sets out tiers (Lite, QA, Pro, and Shells and Drafting add-ons) with feature splits, pricing per user per month billed monthly or annually with 20 per cent off annually, volume discounts of 5, 10 and 15 per cent by seat count, a 30-day full-feature trial and self-serve checkout. The price figures render client-side and were blank in the page as served; third-party listings carry figures and are not used. Verified 18 September 2026.
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.
Users and technical coverage are described with substance, short of stated limits on the AI, which is the B band. ClaimMaster serves patent attorneys, agents and paralegals, supports drafting across electrical, software, mechanical and biochemical technologies, and builds its forms and shells for USPTO practice with EPO data downloads; it runs in Word on Windows, with separate licensing for shared servers. Where the generative tools perform less well is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for ClaimMaster, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
patentclaimmaster.com/EULA.pdf1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
Per user per month (figure not readable on the vendor page)
- ClaimMaster is priced per user, per month, and you can pay monthly or yearly.
- Paying yearly saves 20 per cent, and buying 5 or more seats saves 5 to 15 per cent.
- There are several versions, from basic tools up to the full drafting and AI package.
- You can try the full version free for 30 days.
- The actual prices did not load when we read the page, so we have not listed a figure.
Per user per month, billed monthly or annually (20 per cent annual saving); tiers Lite, QA and Pro with Shells and Drafting add-ons; volume discounts of 5 per cent (5 to 15 seats), 10 per cent (16 to 40) and 15 per cent (41 and over); 30-day free trial of the full version; self-serve checkout through Softwarekey. Figures render client-side and were not read. Source: ClaimMaster pricing page, read 18 September 2026.
Implementation: None stated. Firm-wide deployments can get a custom installer and online training by arrangement with sales.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
Published help pages state no training on customer content, with no matching term in the EULA. The vendor never receives documents, since the add-in runs locally; its OpenAI page says data sent through the API is not used to improve the models and that ClaimMaster has not opted in to data sharing and never will. The EULA addresses only feedback and suggestions submitted to the vendor, not training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer sets the retention window and no retention is an available setting.
The customer chooses the retention path, including none. ClaimMaster keeps no prompts or outputs because the add-in runs locally; prompts sent to OpenAI's API are kept up to 30 days for abuse monitoring, and the customer can instead use its own Azure OpenAI endpoint or a locally running model, which keeps prompts and outputs on its own machine.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Searched the Security page, help files and EULA on 18 September 2026. The add-in runs per user on a local computer and shares no matter data, so there is no multi-user store to wall off (R15); no matter-level permissions are described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Disclosure is addressed and notice is not. The EULA lets ClaimMaster disclose information provided by or about the user, or about their use of the software, in compliance with lawful process or law enforcement requests, with no commitment to notify the user. The vendor holds no document content, which limits what it could disclose.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Searched the drafting pages, help files and release notes on 18 September 2026. The AI works on the user's own documents and selected workspace sections, so no legal corpus is expected (R15); the USPTO and EPO sources used by the downloading tools are public patent data, not a corpus behind AI answers.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. The generative tools draft and analyse patent text and cite no legal authority; no good-law check is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Searched the generative AI and drafting pages, GPT help pages and release notes on 18 September 2026. Users preview output before insertion and are told to check it for factual correctness, but nothing describes what the tools do when the source material does not support a draft, and no confidence signal is shown.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched web and trade press reporting on court sanctions for AI-fabricated citations on 18 September 2026 for any court record addressing fabricated or hallucinated content in output from ClaimMaster. None located; a December 2025 patent case involving AI-generated citations does not name the tool used. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Searched the Security page, help files, EULA and blog on 18 September 2026. No ethics opinion, USPTO guidance on AI use, court order or bar guidance is referred to; the privilege-waiver discussion on the Security page is credited on the privilege axis.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Savings are claimed without addressing billing or disclosure. The drafting page tells patent professionals to beat their hours budget and reduce costs to clients, and a 2022 release claims 20 to 30 per cent drafting time saved per application; nothing addresses how AI-assisted drafting should be billed or disclosed to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
The model providers that can see client content are named. The help pages say document text reaches only the model the customer selects (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Anthropic, or a local model) directly from the user's computer, with no ClaimMaster servers in between, and set out the provider's and retention terms. There is no DPA or forwardable disclosure pack, because the vendor itself processes no content.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Searched the drafting pages, help files and release notes on 18 September 2026. Output goes into patent applications and Office Action responses filed with the USPTO, but nothing addresses disclosing AI use to the Office or a court, or records which text a model produced.