S
Solve Intelligence
Solve Intelligence is an AI platform for patent work, used through a browser editor called Patent Copilot by law firm and in house IP teams. It drafts applications, figures, chemical structures and sequence listings in an attorney's own style, drafts office action responses, reviews drafts before filing, and builds infringement, invalidity and freedom to operate charts. Agents run multi step prosecution and litigation tasks, and agentic retrieval covers patents, literature, standards, case law and patent office records.
Customers choose a United States or EU deployment, each with its own subprocessors, and model providers process data under zero data retention agreements. Solve holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification, with ISO 42001 in progress, and its June 2026 terms carry an IP indemnity and a 12 month fee cap. It reports more than 700 IP teams on six continents, including DLA Piper, Intel, Siemens and Finnegan.
Solve Intelligence, 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.
Alternatives to Solve Intelligence
Vendors in the same categories as Solve Intelligence whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- PPatlyticsPatlytics is an AI patent platform for law firms and in house IP teams.
- DDeepIPDeepIP is an AI patent platform that runs inside Microsoft Word, built for law firms and in house patent teams.
- IInnovationQ+InnovationQ+ is IP.com's search and analytics platform for patent and nonpatent literature, used for prior art discovery, patentability screening, freedom to operate work, landscape mapping…
- AAnkarAnkar is an AI platform for patent professionals, covering the work from invention capture to enforcement.
- CCyprisCypris is an R&D and IP intelligence platform sold by IP Web, Inc. of New York City.
- EEdgeEdge sells AI tools for patent and trademark practitioners.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Every Solve capability is model output: drafting applications, claims, figures, chemical structures and sequence listings, drafting office action responses, reviewing drafts, and building infringement, invalidity and freedom to operate charts. Agents take on whole multi step workflows, and retrieval decides which sources to query and how to iterate. Solve says its models are trained and tuned for patent law and run on providers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS. Without the models, Patent Copilot is an empty browser editor.
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.
Solve's responses and charts carry citations to multiple sources, and charts show their logic. Retrieval preserves citations, follows citation trails and ties each reference back to the legal or technical question, and case law and MPEP provisions are reachable inside the platform. No accuracy rate, error rate, test set or evaluator is published.
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.
Solve works as a copilot inside a document editor: attorneys draft and respond interactively, with output matched to their own style and templates. Agents can take on entire prosecution and litigation workflows, and agentic retrieval chooses its own sources and filters, with each step building on the user's input. Solve's terms make the customer responsible for every decision and action based on output, and its trust center lists oversight of human decisions on AI recommendations as a control. Nothing states what an agent may complete without approval, where it stops, or what review comes before filing.
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.
Solve names its customers widely. DLA Piper partner Larissa Bifano, Intel chief patent counsel Jeff Draeger, Banner Witcoff's Laura Brutman, Ashurst Perkins Coie's Thomas Yee and BCLP's George Chen are quoted by name. Siemens, Finnegan, Quinn Emanuel, Fish, Amgen and Foley Hoag sit on its customer advisory board. Solve reports more than 433,000 applications, 103,000 office action responses and 6,500 claim charts created, and an average workload saving above 50 percent. Those figures carry no method, baseline or date.
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.
Each user's data stays sandboxed, and Solve says neither it nor any third party monitors it. It is not used to train Solve's or any foundation model, and model providers keep nothing under zero data retention agreements. Solve's terms bind those providers to confidentiality and to using inputs and outputs only to provide their service. The terms treat all customer data as confidential information. Customers choose the jurisdiction where data is stored and processed, and data can be exported and deleted at the end of a contract.
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.
Solve gives no legal advice, its terms state, and customers should consult their own legal advisors. Customers and their users are responsible for every decision, piece of advice and action based on the service, and must use it in line with applicable rules and professional standards. The terms also bar customers from presenting any output as human generated. Competence and supervision duties, USPTO guidance and limits by jurisdiction are not addressed.
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.
AI governance controls on Solve's trust center cover the source of model data, exclusion of customer data from training, continuous model performance monitoring, oversight of human decisions on AI recommendations, and fairness and bias testing. ISO 42001 certification is in progress, and Solve says its controls meet the standard's requirements. No test results, model card or named accountable owner are published, and nothing is disclosed about uneven output across technical fields or offices.
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.
Customer data is not used to train or fine tune Solve's models or third party foundation models. Model providers process it under zero data retention agreements, with nothing stored for abuse monitoring or human review. Data is encrypted with TLS 1.3 in transit and AES 256 at rest, internal access is role based and least privilege, and access audits, vulnerability management and penetration tests run continuously. Thirteen subprocessors are named for each of the United States and EU deployments, and incident response protocols appear among Solve's listed controls.
Customer data can be exported, and is deleted at the end of a contract in line with the customer's agreement. No retention period is stated for data held in the platform during a subscription.
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 terms last updated 6 June 2026, Solve gives an indemnity against third party claims that the services infringe intellectual property. Outputs are carved out, since Solve gives no warranties, indemnities or liability for them, and the customer answers for every decision and action based on them. Solve warrants professional and workmanlike service only. Liability is capped at fees paid in the prior 12 months, with indemnity obligations outside the cap, consequential damages excluded, and a $1,000 cap during a free trial.
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.
Solve's home page shows Microsoft Word, Microsoft SharePoint, NetDocuments, Google Drive and Anthropic as integrations, and refers to patent office connections. Its terms mention connectors to third party services, and enterprise customers can arrange custom integrations. What any integration moves, in which direction, or how it is set up is not documented, and no docketing or IP management system is named.
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.
Customers choose a United States or EU deployment, and the data never leaves the chosen jurisdiction. Each deployment has its own 13 subprocessors, and EU customer data is processed entirely on EU infrastructure and never shared with the United States set. Processing follows the same choice, so model calls stay in the chosen region. The service runs on AWS, and payments for every customer go through Stripe to the United States parent company. No single tenant or on premises option is described.
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.
Solve holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification, and ISO 42001 certification is in progress. Its trust center offers the SOC 2 Type II report, ISO 27001 certificate, a penetration testing report and its OpenAI zero data retention agreement through an access request. It also lists 14 controls on AI data governance, model testing and AI security, and 13 subprocessors per deployment. Auditor names and report periods sit inside the documents, which open after the request.
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.
Solve's trust center names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS as language model providers in both its United States and EU deployments, with NLPatent providing patent and literature retrieval. Its terms commit Solve to use only model providers that agree not to train on inputs or outputs and to keep them confidential, and an OpenAI zero data retention agreement is available on request. No model or version is named for any feature, and no notice of provider changes is committed.
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.
Solve publishes no price, tier or unit of charge. Its terms refer to subscriptions bought through a pricing page by card through Stripe, with renewal fee changes on notice and no refunds, but no such page is published. Enterprise pricing is set by arrangement.
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.
Solve serves law firms, in house IP teams and companies, and reports more than 700 IP teams on six continents. Drafting handles figures from any file type, chemical structures and Markush claims, and biological sequence listings. Solution pages cover life sciences, telecommunications, standard essential patents, software and AI, medical devices, mechanical, electrical, consumer goods and design patents. Workflows run from invention disclosures and drafting through office actions, review, translation, charts, freedom to operate, invalidity, portfolio analysis and litigation.
Solve reports 20 percent of Am Law 100 and Chambers ranked IP firms and 30 percent of the Vault 30 IP firms as customers. No list of patent offices or date range is published for its patent collections.
9 public documents
The public pages on file for Solve Intelligence, 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.
-
solveintelligence.com3 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
solveintelligence.com/terms2 signals
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
solveintelligence.com/enterprise1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Court Disclosure Support
Read Oct 13, 2026
-
Good Law Verification
Read Oct 13, 2026
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
Solve says no data uploaded to or output from the product is ever used to train any AI model of any kind, covering its own models and third party foundation models. Its terms bind model providers not to train on inputs or outputs and limit Solve's use of customer data to the purposes of the agreement, without a training clause for Solve itself. Solve's about page says its models keep improving against real patent workflows with every matter, without saying on what data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer sets the retention window and no retention is an available setting.
Customers control zero data retention settings for the model providers, and Solve's security page says provider calls run under zero data retention agreements, with prompts and outputs never stored for abuse monitoring. No retention period is stated for data held in the platform itself, which can be exported and is deleted at the end of a contract in line with the customer's agreement.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Solve sandboxes customer data to each user and separates it across customer environments, with role based, least privilege internal access. Enterprise customers get administrative and permission management tools, which are not described in detail, and no matter level wall is documented.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Either party may disclose confidential information, including customer data, to the extent necessary to comply with applicable law, under Solve's terms. No commitment to notify the customer is made, and no transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
Solve's retrieval covers patent databases and prosecution histories, non patent and academic literature, technical standards, patent office records, case law, MPEP provisions and public product documentation. NLPatent is named as the subprocessor behind patent and literature retrieval. No licensing basis, office list, date range or update cadence is stated for any collection.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Solve puts case law and MPEP provisions inside its prosecution tools and cites sources in its responses and charts. Nothing describes a check of whether a cited decision is still good law, or whether a charted patent is in force, lapsed or invalidated.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Solve's review module catches drafting errors before filing, and its trust center lists continuous model performance monitoring. No confidence signal accompanies generated claims or responses, and nothing describes the system declining when a disclosure cannot support a claim.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for Solve Intelligence. Solve drafts patent applications, office action responses and litigation charts.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Solve's terms require customers to use the service in line with applicable rules and professional standards, and state that Solve gives no legal advice. No bar opinion, USPTO rule of professional conduct or guidance on AI in patent practice is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Solve claims an average workload saving above 50 percent and users more than 90 percent more productive, and its trust center cites 60 to 90 percent efficiency and quality gains. BCLP's George Chen describes using it to produce better work within fixed fees or budgets. How AI assisted drafting or prosecution time appears on a client invoice is not addressed.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
Thirteen subprocessors are listed with their roles for each of Solve's United States and EU deployments, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and AWS as model providers and NLPatent for retrieval. Stripe handles payments. The SOC 2 Type II report, ISO 27001 certificate, a penetration testing report and the OpenAI zero data retention agreement are available through an access request. No data processing agreement is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Solve's output cites its sources across documents and case law, and its charts show the logic behind each mapping, so a reader can see what a passage rests on. Its terms forbid customers from presenting any output as human generated. No record shows which model produced an output, or that a practitioner reviewed and adopted it before filing.