I

IP Author

Every IP Author module is generative, and nothing underneath works without the models. Drafting produces claims, specification and figures from a disclosure. Prior art search runs semantically from the disclosure text rather than from Boolean queries. Office action responses are generated with arguments and claim mapping from the application history. Classification is model driven, and the Evidence of Use assistant is an analysis product.

The platform reads images, tables and diagrams inside Word files, PDFs and slide decks, and generates flowcharts and block diagrams where a disclosure lacks them. Without the models there is no product, not even a database, since the patent literature is searched rather than owned.

IP Author shows the user how search results relate to the invention, and publishes one accuracy claim without a method. Each reference comes with a similarity score, a generated novelty summary, an explanation of overlaps and differences, highlighted passages and side by side comparison, so a practitioner can test a result rather than accept it. The vendor states that, compared with a human searcher, the tool returns similar or the same results 19 out of 20 times.

No sample size, evaluator, definition of similar, date or method is given. The vendor also publishes its own comparisons against named competitors, which are self published.

IP Author states its oversight commitment twice. Product material says users keep full review, editing and decision authority at every stage of drafting, and the FAQ says attorneys and agents stay in full control of the final work product. Output is framed throughout as a first draft or first pass response. What is missing are operating limits: nothing says what the system does unattended, what confidence threshold applies, or what happens when its tools run inside external agent frameworks, where full user control is hardest to keep.

No customer, firm, case study, usage figure, funding announcement, analyst placement, award or third party review is published. The vendor's content library, including competitive comparisons and benchmarks, is self authored, so all the evidence is the vendor describing its own product. Checked the home page, the product pages, the FAQ, the blog library and the site navigation. This records an absence on those pages, not a judgment about adoption.

IP Author has one thoughtful confidentiality feature and no professional confidentiality position. Prior art results can be exported in masked versions that withhold filing dates and raw excerpts, so findings can be shared with clients or outside counsel without oversharing. Nothing located addresses attorney client privilege, work product, or the patent specific risk that exposing an unpublished application can affect patent rights. The Trust Center and privacy policy are published and were not read.

No professional responsibility position is published. The product drafts full patent applications and office action responses under sections 101, 102, 103 and 112, which are filed under a registered practitioner's signature, and its self serve trial means the user may not be an attorney. The vendor says attorneys and agents keep full control of the final work, which is a product statement rather than a professional responsibility framework.

No reference to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 CFR, the duty of competence, or bar or patent office guidance is published.

Nothing is published on how the models are governed, tested or monitored. No AI policy, model card, bias testing, evaluation method, drift monitoring, governance body, ISO 42001 or EU AI Act position is published. The vendor's blog comments on AI industry news and on IP questions raised by AI, which is about the field rather than its own models.

No position on data handling is published on the pages read. Nothing says whether invention disclosures, drafts, search history or generated work are used to train models, how long they are kept, or how they are deleted. The content is unpublished invention disclosures uploaded before filing, and the vendor's own masked export feature shows it understands that disclosure control matters. The Trust Center and privacy policy are published and were not read, and either may answer these questions, so this reflects only the home page, the product pages, the FAQ and the blog library, checked.

No published position on liability for AI output is published: no warranty, service level or remedy. The exposure is real, and the speed claim sharpens it. A complete first draft in fifteen minutes shortens the time in which errors would surface, and claim scope lost at grant cannot be recovered. A wrong traversal argument in an office action response can create prosecution history estoppel. The vendor's answer is that attorneys keep full control, which puts responsibility on the user by design rather than by contract, and no contract is public.

Integration is strong inside the platform and thin outside it. Prior art search is built into drafting, so references carry into claims and specification without retyping, and results export to Word or Excel. Externally, the vendor says its search, claim charting, whitespace analysis and office action tools connect to agent frameworks, the only external connection described. No docketing system, patent management platform, document management system, Microsoft Word integration or API documentation is published. For a prosecution tool, docketing is the main gap.

Nothing is published on where the platform runs: no hosting provider, region, residency commitment, or single tenant or on premises option. That matters in patent work, because foreign filing license rules and export controls can limit where an unpublished application may be processed, and the platform serves users across more than 100 jurisdictions. The Trust Center, where such a statement would usually sit, was not read.

IP Author publishes a Trust Center and a privacy policy, and the Trust Center was not read. No certification is published on the pages that were read: no SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, auditor, penetration testing partner or audit date. A published trust surface is not an absence, and the Trust Center may hold certifications that answer this.

IP Author named a provider once, in passing. An April 2024 blog post comparing it with general purpose tools says IP Author also used ChatGPT, and that the difference lies in prompt engineering, its patent search engine and user experience. That statement is not repeated in current product or trust material and gives no model, version or scope, so a buyer cannot tell whether it still holds. The vendor also says its tools connect to agent frameworks, which is about orchestration rather than models. No subprocessor list is published.

IP Author has a pricing page in its navigation and a 14 day free trial that, per the FAQ, starts without going through sales. That is a more open buying path than a demo request. The pricing page itself was not read, so no price, range, tier or unit of charge is recorded here.

IP Author lists the office action grounds it handles, which is what a prosecution practitioner checks first: rejections under sections 102 and 103, 101 subject matter eligibility, 112 written description, enablement and definiteness, and double patenting, always with a traversal strategy. Search covers worldwide patent and non patent literature and technical standards across more than 100 jurisdictions, filterable by jurisdiction, CPC and IPC class and assignee.

Drafting is stated to follow USPTO, EPO and other office requirements, and life sciences and chemistry work includes sequence handling. What is missing: the drafting jurisdiction list names only two offices, no corpus date range or update lag is published, and the full technical domain list was not stated in the material read.