D
DeepIP

DeepIP is an AI patent platform that runs inside Microsoft Word, built for law firms and in house patent teams. It drafts complete applications from invention disclosures in a firm's own style, generates patent drawings, reviews claims for antecedent basis and section 101 risk, and drafts office action responses with case law citations. Patentability, prior art, freedom to operate and invalidity modules work across more than 120 million patents and non patent literature.

DeepIP runs an OpenAI model on Microsoft Azure alongside proprietary models, with SaaS or on premises deployment and customer data kept in the territories a customer selects. Its April 2026 terms bar training on customer data and carry an indemnity, warranties and insurance, and its trust center holds SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 reports. Founded in New York and Paris by François-Xavier Leduc and Edouard d'Archimbaud, it has raised $40 million and reports more than 500 law firms and in house teams as customers.

Compared with

DeepIP, 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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Every DeepIP module is model driven. Drafting turns an invention disclosure into claims, specification and abstract, and the review module checks claims for antecedent basis, dependency gaps and section 101 risk. The prosecution module analyzes rejections and drafts responses with case law citations. Patentability, prior art retrieval, freedom to operate and invalidity analysis map claims against more than 120 million patents and non patent literature, and drawing generation turns sketches and method steps into formal figures.

DeepIP combines an OpenAI model hosted on Azure with proprietary models built for patent work. Without the models, the Word add in has nothing to do.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

DeepIP's office action module drafts responses with case law citations from its citation engine, and prior art retrieval ranks references by relevance with the citation shown for each. Freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the claim or prior art text that supports them, and Modern Times Legal's founder describes quoted citations linked to their sources. Retrieval is semantic, across more than 120 million patents and non patent literature.

DeepIP says its models go through testing for factual accuracy with patent expert feedback, but publishes no accuracy figure, test set or error rate.

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.

DeepIP works as an assistant inside Microsoft Word. Drafts, review flags, office action arguments and freedom to operate opinions arrive in the document, where attorneys comment, edit and track changes. The review module marks issues inside the claim text, and freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the claim or prior art text behind them. DeepIP offers trials only to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents, and its terms leave the customer solely responsible for reviewing and validating every output.

Nothing states what a module may complete without an attorney, or where its agentic prior art retrieval stops and hands back to a person.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Nixon & Vanderhye's Corey Hawse reports tasks that took 20 to 30 minutes now taking under five, and gains of 50 percent or more on the tasks where savings are sharpest. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, with more than 100 practitioners, reports focused work rising from four to six hours a day to seven or eight. Philips saw about 20 percent better drafting and prosecution efficiency in a trial and now uses DeepIP for invention analysis, prior art, drafting and office actions.

Dilworth IP chose DeepIP as its primary drafting system after two years of evaluating tools, and Wood IP and Greenberg Traurig are quoted by name. The figures are the firms' own estimates, and the case studies carry no dates. DeepIP reports more than 25,000 applications drafted and 40,000 matters assisted, and $40 million raised through a $25 million Series B announced on 3 March 2026.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

All customer data counts as confidential information under DeepIP's terms, which recognize that it may include material covered by attorney client privilege and keep the confidentiality duty on it indefinitely. The terms bar training on customer data, require model providers to keep it confidential and apart from other customers, and set out its destruction after termination. DeepIP lists section 203 of the German Criminal Code, the professional secrecy provision, beside ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II and GDPR. Users and organizations are kept separate, and no matter level wall within a firm is described.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Not a law firm and not an attorney, DeepIP gives no legal advice, its terms state. Outputs and templates are tools for operational support, not guaranteed accurate, and the customer stays solely responsible for reviewing them and for advising its own clients. No attorney client relationship arises with DeepIP or its staff, including staff with patent backgrounds and the experts who run product sessions. DeepIP offers trials and demos only to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents, and tells inventors to consult patent attorneys. Duties of competence and supervision, and limits by jurisdiction, are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureA published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner.

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.

DeepIP holds ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification for its AI management system, listed on its trust center with a 2026 certificate available through an access request. The trust center's controls include board oversight briefings, control self assessments and tested continuity plans. DeepIP says its models go through testing and validation for factual accuracy, with a feedback loop to patent experts, but publishes no test method or result.

No accountable owner for the models is named, and nothing is disclosed about whether output quality differs across technical fields or patent offices.

Source: Vendor Published
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.

DeepIP encrypts data in transit with TLS 1.2 or later and at rest with AES 256, restricts access to production systems and databases, and requires multifactor authentication for remote access. Its trust center lists ten subprocessors with their roles and regions. The terms require zero data retention at the model provider and an opt out from provider abuse monitoring wherever the provider offers them. Customer data is stored only in the territories named in the order form and can be exported on request during the term.

It is destroyed within 30 days of a final export, or after termination when no export is asked for within 8 days, with a destruction certificate on request. No incident notification commitment or breach timeline is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

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.

Under its April 2026 terms, DeepIP warrants professional performance and a service free from reproducible errors against its documentation, with repair, replacement or termination as the remedy. It defends and indemnifies customers against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property or trade secrets. DeepIP may then procure rights, modify or replace the service, or end the agreement and refund unused prepaid fees.

Liability is capped at the fees paid in the prior 12 months, with confidentiality, intellectual property and indemnity claims outside the cap and consequential damages excluded. DeepIP warrants cyber liability and errors and omissions insurance of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence. The terms disclaim the accuracy of AI output and leave its review to the customer, and free trials carry a $1,000 cap.

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 is where DeepIP runs, so drafting, review, office action, freedom to operate and invalidity work happen in the document with comments and tracked changes. DeepIP integrates with docketing and IP management systems and offers a REST API for custom integrations. The prosecution module retrieves USPTO and EPO file documents in one click and indexes them with OCR. No docketing or IP management system is named, and what moves between DeepIP and those systems is not described.

DeepIP reports 20 percent higher adoption and 40 percent higher usage for its embedded approach than for standalone tools.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment options and data residency are published, including the regions available, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.

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.

DeepIP runs as SaaS by default, with an on premises data deployment available through the order form. Customer data is stored and processed only in the territories the order form names, and does not leave them without the customer's written consent. Its cloud hosts, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform, and its model provider, OpenAI, each run in the United States or the EU. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner chose DeepIP after a security review of its Azure deployment in the United States. No architecture or support terms are published for the on premises option.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCurrent independent attestation with named scope, reachable without a sales call: a trust center carrying reports, dates and the standards actually covered.

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.

DeepIP's trust center lists ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2, ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and GDPR. It offers the 2026 ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certificates, the 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report and a penetration test through an access request, and shows an engagement letter openly. Its control list covers production access, multifactor authentication, network segmentation, firewall review, background checks and tested continuity plans. DeepIP's security program follows NIST 800-53 Moderate and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, with outside penetration tests and vulnerability assessments. Auditor names and examination periods sit inside the reports, which open after the access request.

Source: Vendor Published
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.

DeepIP uses an OpenAI model hosted on Microsoft Azure, sends no data to OpenAI's own infrastructure, and has Microsoft's abuse monitoring switched off under its Azure agreement. Its terms name OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Google Cloud Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock and Azure AI Foundry among the providers it may use. Each must contractually bar training on customer data and keep that data confidential. OpenAI, the language model provider, runs in the United States or the EU. No model or version is named for any module, and the terms commit to no notice when providers change.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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.

DeepIP sells subscriptions by the seat, on monthly or annual terms that renew automatically, and its terms put the fee on the subscription page or an order form. A self service trial opens with a card on file and no charge before it ends. Price rises at renewal need 45 days' notice on annual plans and 20 days on monthly ones, and prepaid fees are not refunded on early exit. No seat price, tier or volume rate is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Firm and Practice CoverageWho the product serves is documented precisely: firm segments, in house and government use, and the practice areas actually supported, with the limits stated.

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.

DeepIP serves law firms and in house patent teams, and limits trials and demos to practitioners who draft and prosecute patents; inventors are not offered access. It shapes drafts to the formal rules of the USPTO, EPO, CIPO, CNIPA, DPMA, INPI, IPO, JPO, KIPO and UKIPO, and to PCT filings. Modules run from invention disclosure and patentability through drafting, drawings, review and office actions to freedom to operate, invalidity and portfolio work.

Chemistry and life sciences drafting handles Markush structures, stereochemistry, experimental data and ST.26 sequence listings, with further pages for mechanical, ICT and biology work. DeepIP reports more than 500 law firms and in house teams as customers, across 25 jurisdictions.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

9 public documents

The public pages on file for DeepIP, 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.

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 the contract

The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.

DeepIP's April 2026 terms bar it from using customer data to train, retrain or improve any AI model unless both parties agree in writing. Model providers it selects must contractually commit not to train their own models on that data. A separate clause lets DeepIP use aggregated, anonymized usage data, which can include prompts, to analyze and improve the service. DeepIP's security page and trust center state the same no training position.

Source: Vendor Publishedshall not use Customer Data for the purpose of training, re-training or improvingAs 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?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Prompts sent to the model provider are kept only as long as processing takes, under the zero data retention settings DeepIP's terms require where a provider offers them. Inside DeepIP, customer data is stored encrypted during the subscription, and no period is stated for prompts and outputs while it runs. After termination, DeepIP destroys customer data within 30 days of the final export, or once 8 days pass without an export request. DeepIP's trust center says customer data is not stored.

Source: Vendor PublishedDEEPIP undertakes to destroy all Customer Data provided under this AgreementAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

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

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

DeepIP states that users and organizations are kept completely separate, and its trust center lists network segmentation among its controls. How separation works inside a firm is not described, including whether one attorney's matters are walled from another's or a matter can be limited to named users. Patent firms often prosecute for competitors in the same technical field, and no matter level restriction is described.

Source: Vendor Publishedwe maintain complete segregation of users and organizational dataAs 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?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

When a court order or administrative process compels disclosure, DeepIP's terms commit it to notify the customer promptly in writing. DeepIP also takes reasonable steps the customer asks for to resist, and lets the customer control the proceeding with counsel of its choice. No transparency report is published. Contracts run through DeepIP Incorporated in New York for North American customers and DeepIP SAS in Paris for everyone else.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill promptly notify the Disclosing Party in writingAs 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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

DeepIP's prior art retrieval covers more than 120 million patents worldwide and non patent literature. Its prosecution module pulls USPTO and EPO file documents, including claims, examiner notes and cited art. No database or data provider is named for the patent collection, and no licensing basis, date range or update cadence is stated. DeepIP describes its product as combining third party models, proprietary models and unique data access, without naming the data.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs 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.

Office action responses drafted by DeepIP carry case law citations, and its freedom to operate module identifies active patent rights across jurisdictions. Nothing describes a check of a cited decision's later history, and no citator is named.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026Evidence

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

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

Confidence signal only

The product exposes a confidence or grounding score without an explicit abstention path.

DeepIP's patentability module returns a structured novelty and obviousness assessment with confidence levels. The review module gives a probability of a section 101 rejection, and freedom to operate analysis rates the risk from each blocking patent. What the system does when a disclosure cannot support a claim, or no prior art supports an answer, is not described.

Source: Vendor PublishedGet a structured assessment with confidence scores.As 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 DeepIP. DeepIP drafts patent applications and office action responses with case law citations.

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?

Generic reference

Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.

DeepIP tells practitioners to validate everything the system produces and to apply their own professional judgment. Its terms state that it is not a law firm and gives no legal advice. No bar opinion, USPTO rule of professional conduct or patent office guidance on AI is named.

Source: Vendor Publisheduse their own professional judgment when using any AI solutionAs 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.

DeepIP claims drafting time cut by up to 70 percent on a full application and more than two hours saved per attorney each day. Its ROI calculator puts typical savings at 40 to 55 percent of drafting and office action time, roughly $25,000 to $90,000 a year per attorney. The law firm page promises higher margins per case, and Philips reported about 20 percent better efficiency in a trial. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work appears on a client invoice.

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.

Ten subprocessors appear on DeepIP's trust center, with roles and regions. Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform host the service, OpenAI provides the language model and Datadog monitors it, each in the United States or the EU. Auth0, Mixpanel, Intercom, Hyperline, HubSpot and PandaDoc cover identity, analytics, support, billing, marketing and documents. The 2026 SOC 2 Type 2 report, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certificates and a penetration test are available through an access request. No data processing agreement is published.

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?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Drafting, review, freedom to operate and invalidity work happen inside Microsoft Word, so comments and tracked changes record the editing. Freedom to operate and invalidity conclusions link to the underlying claim or prior art text, and DeepIP describes those outputs as audit ready. Nothing marks which passages a model wrote, and no record shows that a practitioner adopted generated claim language before filing.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs 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 430 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 14, 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