P
Patent Bots

Patent Bots is a suite of tools for patent preparation and prosecution from Patent Bots, Inc., founded in 2018 by patent attorney Jeff O'Neill. Its flagship, Prep & Pros Pro, runs as a Microsoft Word add in and in the browser. It proofreads applications and office action responses for antecedent basis, claim numbering, word support, reference label and limiting word errors, and it drafts sections such as figure descriptions, claim summaries and flowcharts with generative AI.

Office Action Explorer, response shells, IDS forms, client letters and USPTO forms cover prosecution paperwork. Art Unit Predictor uses a neural network trained on USPTO data to forecast the group and art unit an application will reach. Examiner statistics, PatentPlex family trees and timelines, PatentLink portfolio lists and PatentVerse quality rankings sit beside them. Generative features run on Anthropic models through AWS Bedrock with zero data retention, are off by default and are switched on by an administrator. Patent Bots says 45 of the top 100 patent law firms use it, and it publishes firm, company and individual prices.

Compared with

Patent Bots, 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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Source: Operator Verified
AA on AI Safety and Data StewardshipRetention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current, and specific enough to hold the vendor to.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

4 public documents

The public pages on file for Patent Bots, 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 $27 per month

USD, as published, never converted
  • Patent Bots shows its prices online for law firms, companies and single practitioners.
  • A one person firm pays $65 a month for the main drafting and proofreading tool, and cheaper add ons start at $27 a month.
  • Bigger firms pay more, up to $3,700 a month for the main tool above 200 practitioners.
  • Companies pay at least $2,999 a year, set by how many patents they receive in the United States.
  • There is a 14 day free trial.

Law firm subscriptions are priced per month by the number of registered practitioners, on monthly or annual terms. For a solo firm, Prep & Pros Pro is $65 a month, Art Unit Predictor $48, PatentPlex $37 and premium examiner statistics $27. For 31 to 50 practitioners the same products are $1,240, $920, $710 and $460 a month. Above 200 practitioners they are $3,700, $2,750, $2,110 and $1,370. PatentLink is usage based, in points per patent.

An individual practitioner at a law firm can buy Prep & Pros Pro alone for $702 a year, without the office action admin tools. Company subscriptions are priced on the average number of patents issued in the United States over three years, with yearly minimums of $2,999 (Basic), $5,999 (Core) and $9,999 (Premium). Basic examiner statistics are free.

Implementation: Company onboarding options carry minimum subscriptions: $9,999 with a security review, $19,999 with single sign on and $39,999 with a custom contract. No separate setup fee is listed for law firm or individual plans.

Confidentiality and data terms: None

Note: Subscriptions renew automatically, are invoiced at the start of the period on net 30 terms where invoiced, and are not refundable or prorated on cancellation. Prices can change with at least one month's notice. Firms with a separate signed contract may have other terms.

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.

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.

Source: Vendor Publisheddo not use any customer data for model training or improvement purposesAs 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 fixed window

A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedimmediately discard your patent documents and not store or log any contentAs 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 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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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.

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.

Source: Vendor Publishedwill promptly inform you to allow you to contest or minimize the scopeAs 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.

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.

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.

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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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.

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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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 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.

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.

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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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.

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.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 13, 2026

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.

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.

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 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.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 13, 2026
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