C
ClaimMaster

ClaimMaster is a Microsoft Word add in for patent attorneys, agents and paralegals. It proofreads claims, specifications and office action responses, drafts application sections, figures and flowcharts, generates office action shells and USPTO forms, and downloads USPTO and EPO data. The +Drafting and +Shells add ons connect it to models from OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Anthropic, or to local models through Ollama. They draft and rewrite text, describe figures and analyze office actions.

The add in runs on the user's Windows computer and sends document text to a model only on the user's command, straight to the provider. Seats cost from $20 per user per month on annual billing, up to $75 for Pro with drafting and shells, with a 30 day trial. ClaimMaster Software LLC, a small independent company under Maryland law, released version 2026.5 in October 2026.

Compared with

ClaimMaster, head to head

Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.

Build your own comparison

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.

CC on AI CentralityArtificial intelligence is present but peripheral: a feature layer on a product whose value stands without it.

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.

ClaimMaster's core is rule based. Proofreading of claims, specifications and office action responses, template drafting of sections and flowcharts, office action shells, USPTO forms and patent data downloads all run without a language model. The +Drafting and +Shells add ons bring the generative tools: drafting and rewriting text, figure descriptions, an LLM chat, office action analysis and, since version 2026.5, optional LLM proofreading with custom prompts.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureAccuracy is asserted without measurement, or grounding is claimed while output cites sources the reader cannot open and verify.

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.

Drafting tools can run retrieval augmented generation over a local workspace of selected sections from earlier applications, retrieved by meaning, and users can supply example documents to reduce hallucinations. Users are told to review responses for factual correctness, especially at higher creativity settings. Output does not cite the passages it drew on, and no accuracy figure or test is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Every LLM feature in ClaimMaster sends data only after the user presses a button, and the user controls exactly what is sent. Drafted text can be previewed and edited before insertion, and each prompt carries a creativity setting. LLM proofreading in version 2026.5 needs an explicit opt in at both the administrator and the user level, and all GPT features can be switched off for a whole firm on request. Nothing limits what the output may be used for or describes a review step before filing.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

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.

Thousands of patent professionals use the product, ClaimMaster says, at some of the largest corporations and law firms as well as smaller firms and solo practices, and the site quotes satisfied users without names. It was built by a practicing patent attorney and a former USPTO examiner. No named firm, dated result or method is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureWritten commitments a buyer can read before signing: no training on client data, segregation documented at the level the buyer segment requires (matter level walls for a firm, tenant level separation for an in house team), privilege and work product handling addressed directly, retention and deletion stated, and the position on third party model providers made explicit.

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.

ClaimMaster warrants that the add in collects and transmits no user data, apart from patent number lookups, term definitions and LLM prompts sent at the user's request. It gives the risk of waiving attorney client privilege in cloud processing as the reason for running locally. LLM prompts go straight to the chosen provider with no intermediate server, ClaimMaster trains no models on customer data, and it has not opted in to OpenAI data sharing and says it never will.

Each user's documents stay on that user's machine, private endpoints and local models are available, and all GPT features can be turned off for a firm. These commitments sit on the security and help pages, not in the license agreement.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

The license agreement makes the user solely responsible for content created with the software, which sells to patent attorneys, agents and paralegals. The help pages tell users to review LLM responses for factual correctness and to decide whether each provider's policies meet their obligations. Nothing states whether the product gives legal advice, and nothing addresses competence or supervision duties, USPTO guidance on AI use, or jurisdiction.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

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 governance position is published. It uses base models from OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Anthropic, or local models, without fine tuning them. Nothing describes how its prompts and AI features are tested before release, who answers for them, or how output quality varies across technologies.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

The add in runs locally, keeps proofreading reports on the user's computer and collects no work product. Prompts go from the user's machine straight to the configured model over HTTPS, with no ClaimMaster server in between. ClaimMaster says data sent through the API is processed and not retained, while its summary of OpenAI's policy notes that provider's 30 day abuse monitoring retention. Files uploaded to a provider during a chat are deleted when the session ends and can be deleted earlier from the add in.

Private Azure endpoints, a customer's own API keys and local models change who processes the data. No breach notification or incident practice is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Liability and RecourseA real published position on liability, short of the full picture: commonly a stated indemnity without scope or caps.

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.

Conformance to specifications at purchase and freedom from known malware are warranted in ClaimMaster's license agreement. Bugs are repaired, the software updated or replaced at no charge during the subscription, and a prorated refund applies when a defect cannot be fixed. Indirect and consequential damages are excluded, including any loss of confidentiality from sending data to a third party model service, and no aggregate cap is stated.

The user is solely responsible for content created with the software and indemnifies ClaimMaster against misuse, and no vendor indemnity covers output.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

Practice Systems Integration Depth

How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.

Microsoft Word, where drafting happens, is where ClaimMaster runs. Its help files document downloading bibliographic data, file wrappers, family trees and PDFs from the USPTO Open Data Portal, Patent Center and EPO, with background downloads for large patent and IDS lists. They also cover configuring OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Anthropic and local LLM endpoints, and LLM summaries in the patent viewer. Bibliographic data for forms and shells can be imported from Private PAIR XML or from docketing tools as CSV, and no live connection to a docketing, document management or IP management system is described.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Installation is per user, on each Windows computer, with documents processed locally, and installs on shared servers need separate licenses. LLM calls go from the user's machine to OpenAI, to Azure OpenAI or a customer's own Azure endpoint, to Anthropic, or to a model running locally through Ollama. OpenAI's servers are stated to be in the United States. Where the private OpenAI, Azure and Anthropic models that ClaimMaster configures for subscribers run is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

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 SOC 2 report, ISO certification or audit is named for ClaimMaster. Its security page rests on local execution, and the API keys users store for private models are encrypted.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe supply chain is partly disclosed: providers named without change notification, or architecture described without the providers.

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.

OpenAI's GPT models (GPT-5 among them), Azure OpenAI, Anthropic's Claude models and local models through Ollama all connect to ClaimMaster, which runs no proprietary models. It configures private, stateless OpenAI, Azure and Anthropic models for subscribers, and customers can bring their own keys or Azure endpoints. Calls go directly from the user's computer to the provider. Model support changes appear in release notes, such as the October 2026 updates for recent Anthropic, OpenAI and Ollama API changes, and no notice of changes is committed.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Commercial TransparencyA buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, and what implementation adds.

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.

ClaimMaster publishes per user prices for every tier, billed monthly or annually with 20 percent off annually. Lite costs $20 a month on annual billing ($24 monthly), or $30 with shells and forms; QA costs $30; Pro costs $35, $45 with shells, $65 with drafting and $75 with both ($90 monthly). Volume discounts are 5, 10 and 15 percent at 5, 16 and 41 seats, checkout is self service through SoftwareKey, and auto renewal can be cancelled at any time.

Users download and activate the add in themselves after a 30 day trial of the full version, and firms deploying widely can get a custom installer and online training by arrangement.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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.

Patent attorneys, agents and paralegals at firms and companies of every size use ClaimMaster, and in house attorneys use it to check outside counsel's work. Drafting covers electrical, software, mechanical and biochemical technologies. Its shells and forms are built for USPTO practice, office action analysis now reads non United States and non patent citations, and EPO data can be downloaded. It runs in Word on Windows. Where the generative tools perform less well is not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

7 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.

Pricing

From $20 per user per month, billed annually

USD, as published, never converted
  • ClaimMaster is priced per user, per month, and you can pay monthly or yearly.
  • Lite starts at $20 a month on a yearly plan, QA is $30, and Pro runs from $35 to $75 depending on the drafting and shells add ons.
  • Paying yearly saves 20 percent, and buying 5 or more seats saves 5 to 15 percent.
  • You can try the full version free for 30 days.

Per user per month. On annual billing, Lite $20, Lite with Shells $30, QA $30, Pro $35, Pro with Shells $45, Pro with Drafting $65, Pro with Drafting and Shells $75. On monthly billing, Lite $24, Lite with Shells $36, QA $36, Pro $42, Pro with Shells $54, Pro with Drafting $78, Pro with Drafting and Shells $90. Volume discounts of 5 percent (5 to 15 seats), 10 percent (16 to 40) and 15 percent (41 and over); 30 day free trial of the full version; self service checkout through SoftwareKey.

Implementation: None stated. Firm wide deployments can get a custom installer with license details and online training by arrangement with sales.

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in policy only

A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.

ClaimMaster never receives document content, since the add in runs locally, and its data policy page says it trains no models on customer data. It has not opted in to OpenAI data sharing, and it summarizes the OpenAI, Azure OpenAI and Anthropic API terms, which bar training on API data. The license agreement addresses only feedback submitted to ClaimMaster, not training. The drafting page's invitation to train models on a firm's own data refers to example documents passed into prompts.

Source: Vendor PublishedClaimMaster has not opted-in to share data and will never do soAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Customer set, zero available

The customer sets the retention window and no retention is an available setting.

ClaimMaster keeps no prompts or outputs, because the add in runs on the user's computer. Prompts sent to OpenAI's API may be kept up to 30 days for abuse monitoring under OpenAI's policy, which ClaimMaster quotes, while its own summary says API data is not retained. Files uploaded during a chat are deleted when the session ends. A customer can route prompts to its own Azure endpoint or to a local model, keeping them off any provider.

Source: Vendor Publishedretained for abuse and misuse monitoring purposes for a maximum of 30 daysAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.

Each ClaimMaster user works on a local computer with no shared matter store, so documents never pool between users. No permissions at matter level are described for document workspaces or prompt templates shared across a firm.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

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.

Under its license agreement, ClaimMaster may disclose information provided by or about the user, or about their use of the software, under lawful process or law enforcement requests. No commitment to notify the user is made. ClaimMaster holds no document content, which limits what it could disclose.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

ClaimMaster's AI works on the user's own documents and workspaces of earlier applications, with no legal corpus behind its answers. Its downloading tools draw public USPTO and EPO patent data, separate from the generative tools.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Patent text is what the generative tools draft and analyze, with no legal authority cited. Office action analysis annotates prior art by column and line, and no check of whether cited law is still good is described.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Users preview drafted text before insertion and are told to check it for factual correctness. What the tools do when the source material cannot support a draft is not described, and no confidence signal is shown.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for ClaimMaster. ClaimMaster drafts patent application text and office action responses for filing with the USPTO.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

The risk of waiving privilege in cloud processing is discussed on the security page without citing any guidance. No ethics opinion, USPTO guidance on AI use, court order or bar guidance is referred to.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

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.

The drafting page tells patent professionals to beat their hours budget and reduce costs to clients. How work drafted with AI should be billed or disclosed to clients is not addressed.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Subprocessors listed

A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.

Document text reaches only the model the customer selects, OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Anthropic or a local model, directly from the user's computer. ClaimMaster's data policy page sets out each provider's data use and retention terms and links them. ClaimMaster itself processes no content, so it publishes no data processing agreement.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

Output goes into patent applications and office action responses filed with the USPTO. Nothing records which text a model produced, and disclosing AI use to the Office or a court is not addressed.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 30, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746