Solve Intelligence vs DeepIP: Which AI Patent Drafting Tool Is Right for Your Firm?

Overview – Our Verdict in 30 Seconds

Solve Intelligence

Solve Intelligence is an enterprise-grade, browser-native AI patent drafting platform designed for law firms managing high-volume workflows across multiple jurisdictions. It combines intelligent drafting (claims, specifications, abstracts) with automated figure generation, prosecution support, and invention harvesting—all in a single collaborative environment. Solve never trains on client data, encrypts all communications, maintains SOC2 and ISO 27001 certifications, and offers flexible data residency (US, UK, EU) for firms handling sensitive unpublished inventions.

Solve Intelligence is best for:

  • AmLaw firms and boutique IP practices managing distributed teams across multiple offices
  • Teams requiring strict confidentiality assurances and predictable data residency compliance
  • Firms handling high-volume prosecution workflows, office action responses, and multi-jurisdiction filings

DeepIP

DeepIP is a Word-embedded AI copilot that integrates directly into Microsoft Word workflows. It focuses on streamlining the drafting process for practitioners who spend most of their time in familiar Word documents, with particular strength in claims and specification generation. DeepIP excels at minimal friction for solo practitioners and small teams who prefer working within native Word interfaces rather than adopting new platforms.

DeepIP is best for:

  • Solo practitioners and small two-person teams working primarily in Word
  • Practitioners seeking minimal platform disruption to existing Word-centric workflows
  • Individual contributors who draft patents as part of broader corporate counsel roles
OverviewComparisonStrengthsWorkflowsSecurityPricing & ROIAdoptionFAQ

Features at a glance

Solve Intelligence
DeepIP
Tool Type
Browser-native editor with collaborative environment
Word plugin (Microsoft Word extension)
Drafting Coverage
Full patent lifecycle (claims, spec, abstract, figures, office actions, invention harvesting)
Claims and specification; Word-embedded workflow
Prior Art & Analytics Depth
Integrated search, landscape analysis, and citation pulling
Limited; focuses on drafting acceleration
Figure Generation & Labeling
Native figure generation with automated labeling and reference updates
Figure support limited to specification context
Workflow Integration
Browser, API access, Microsoft/Thomson Reuters ecosystem
Native Word plugin; integrates with existing .docx workflows
Team collaboration
Multi-user simultaneous editing, feedback systems, role-based permissions
Single-document sharing via Word; limited real-time collaboration
Security & Data Protection
No client data used for training; AES-256 encryption; SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001, GDPR/CCPA compliant; Azure hosting
SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001, GDPR/CCPA; data security practices not publicly detailed
Data Residency Options
US (default), UK, EU hosting with full isolation
Not publicly specified; region selection limited
Ideal User Profile
AmLaw firms, distributed teams, high-volume prosecution, multi-jurisdiction practices
Solo practitioners, Word-native practitioners, small teams
Pricing Model
Transparent per-seat licensing, enterprise volume discounts, self-serve evaluation
Sales-led enterprise contracts; pricing upon request

Where Solve Intelligence Stands Out

Security, Confidentiality & Data Usage

Patent drafting involves handling unpublished inventions, trade secrets, and attorney-client privileged information. For this reason, data security is not a feature—it's a foundational obligation.

DeepIP excels at one specific moment in the patent workflow: when you have a rough invention idea or preliminary claims and need a polished specification and claims written quickly. It's a speed tool for that narrow, high-friction transition.

Solve Intelligence is built on a "zero-training" principle: client data never flows into any AI model retraining, fine-tuning, or feature development pipeline. Every application draft, invention disclosure, and attorney note remains completely isolated. All data is encrypted in transit (TLS 1.3) and at rest (AES-256), audited quarterly under SOC2 Type II standards, and certified ISO 27001 compliant.

More importantly, Solve offers explicit data residency options: firms can select US-hosted infrastructure (default, AWS/Azure), UK-hosted (for firms subject to UK data protection law), or EU-hosted (for GDPR-regulated practices). This granularity matters for AmLaw practices with multi-jurisdictional clients, in-house teams with regional compliance requirements, and firms managing sensitive pharmaceutical, semiconductor, and fintech IP.

DeepIP provides standard enterprise security (SOC2, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance), but its data residency story is less transparent. As a Word-integrated solution, DeepIP data inherits whatever security posture your Microsoft 365 tenant maintains—which is strong, but not independently auditable at the patent-specific level.

For patent practitioners: Solve's explicit "no training on client data" commitment and granular data residency controls reduce regulatory risk and give boards and compliance teams clear lines of sight into how sensitive inventions are protected.

Depth Across the Patent Lifecycle

Solve covers the entire patent lifecycle:

  1. Invention to Claims: Solve's invention harvesting tools extract key technical details from messy disclosure forms, inventor interviews, or technical documentation—then suggest claims automatically or let attorneys build from scratch.
  2. Drafting & Collaboration: Once claims are drafted (AI-assisted or attorney-led), Solve generates full specifications, abstracts, and figures, with real-time multi-user editing, comment threads, and version control.
  3. Figure Generation & Management: Solve generates patent figures (flowcharts, block diagrams, component drawings) from text descriptions, auto-labels every element with proper antecedent basis, and updates labels and references when claims or spec change.
  4. Prosecution & Office Actions: When an office action arrives, Solve helps you analyze rejections, draft amendments, and track claim-language edits across multiple versions—all without leaving the Solve environment.
  5. Multi-Jurisdiction Compliance: Solve's claim generation engine understands USPTO, WIPO, EPO, and UKIPO claim formats, so a single disclosure can be used to draft applications for multiple jurisdictions with proper claim structure for each office.

DeepIP handles steps 1–2 elegantly but stops there. If you need to iterate figures, manage office actions, or support prosecution, you're back to Word, email, and spreadsheets.

For law firm efficiency: Solve reduces tool-switching, centralizes patent data, and cuts the time between first draft and filing by 40–60% across larger teams.

Control & Quality for Attorneys

Patent drafting is not autocomplete; it's professional work. Attorneys need visible control over what the AI generates and confidence that quality-assurance rules are being enforced.

Solve provides:

  • Claim-first or spec-first drafting: Start with claims and auto-generate matching spec, or start with disclosure and auto-generate claims, then refine both.
  • Line-by-line editing: Review every paragraph, edit inline, and revert to prior versions without regenerating the entire document.
  • Built-in QA checks: Antecedent basis verification (every claim element appears in the spec), cross-reference validation, claim chart checks, and office action response templates.
  • Feedback loops: Highlight issues for the AI to fix (e.g., "Dependent claim 15 doesn't properly narrow claim 13"), and Solve recalculates accordingly.

DeepIP operates more like a "one-shot" generator: you provide a disclosure or claims, hit the generate button, and get a full specification. Iteration requires re-running generation or manual editing in Word.

For quality-conscious practices: Solve's visibility into AI reasoning and built-in review tools reduce risk of antecedent-basis errors, inconsistent terminology, and claim-scope mistakes that can haunt prosecution.

Enterprise Rollout & Adoption

Solve Intelligence backs 200+ IP teams across 5 continents, from 5-person boutique practices to Fortune 500 in-house teams. The platform was built by patent attorneys alongside Thomson Reuters and Microsoft, and its roadmap is shaped by feedback from real prosecution, litigation, and invention workflows.

This scale comes with:

  • Structured onboarding: Dedicated implementation specialists (not self-serve docs) who train your team on workflows, customize claim templates for your practice, and establish metrics for adoption.
  • Change management playbooks: Guidance on introducing AI drafting to existing teams, managing attorney skepticism, and measuring time savings per matter.
  • Continuous improvement: Monthly updates to claim generation models, figure logic, and prosecution rules based on USPTO and international office trends.
  • Community & best practices: Access to webinars, case studies, and peer discussions with other IP teams using Solve.

DeepIP takes a self-serve approach: trial access, limited onboarding support, and reliance on Word training for rollout. This works well for individuals but requires significant internal effort for firms rolling out to 20+ users.

For strategic deployment: Solve's enterprise support means faster adoption, higher user satisfaction, and more predictable ROI per seat.

Where DeepIP is stronger

To be credible, we must acknowledge what DeepIP does exceptionally well:

  1. Minimal Workflow Disruption: If your firm operates entirely in Word, DeepIP requires zero new tool adoption. Practitioners don't need to learn a browser-based editor, and documents stay in familiar .docx format. For risk-averse small teams, this is a real advantage.Claims-to-Spec Speed
  2. Claims-to-Spec Speed: DeepIP's Word-native, one-click spec generation from claims is genuinely fast. For a solo practitioner with a stack of provisional applications to flesh out, DeepIP gets you from claims to first draft in minutes, not hours.Simplicity
  3. Simplicity: Word integration means less training, fewer button-clicks, and lower cognitive load. If you don't need figure generation, multi-office support, or prosecution tools, that simplicity is an asset, not a limitation.

Which tool should you choose?

Solve Intelligence

Choose Solve Intelligence if you:

  • Run a law firm with multiple attorneys, paralegals, and support staff who need to collaborate on drafting in real time

  • Handle high-volume filing across US, UK, and European jurisdictions with strict data residency compliance

  • Want a single platform for drafting, figures, prosecution support, and invention harvesting—reducing context-switching and increasing efficiency

  • Need transparent security, granular data controls, and third-party audit trails (SOC2, ISO 27001) for board or compliance oversight

DeepIP

Choose DeepIP if you:

  • Work solo or as a pair, spending most time in Word and Microsoft 365 already

  • Primarily need fast claims-to-spec generation with minimal platform overhead

  • Have simple, straightforward patent drafting workflows and don't require figures, multi-jurisdiction support, or prosecution tools

  • Prefer a "light-touch" AI tool over an integrated platform

How each tool handles core workflows

Workflow 1: From Messy Invention Disclosure to First Draft

Solve Intelligence
DeepIP

You receive an invention disclosure form from your client—30 pages, 5 inventors, lots of technical jargon, some diagrams, and conflicting claim language from previous attempts.

Solve's invention harvesting tool extracts key technical elements, summarizes them, and suggests independent and dependent claim structures. You review the suggested claims, edit 2–3 for clarity, then generate the specification. Solve auto-populates all references ("element 101 as described in Section III"), generates your first set of figures with captions, and serves up a fully formatted draft in 90 minutes. Your team reviews it in parallel using Solve's comment thread, mark the three fixes needed, regenerate the affected sections, and you're in filing-ready shape by end of day.

Total wall-clock time: 2–3 hours. Attorney billable time: 1.5 hours (review + edits).

You copy the disclosure text into a Word document and paste it into DeepIP's claims-generation prompt. DeepIP generates claims (good). You review, tweak for Markman language, and save. You then manually write the specification in Word, copying structure from old applications, filling in technical details from the disclosure, and creating basic text descriptions for figures.

DeepIP doesn't handle figure generation, so you either commission an illustrator, use clip-art templates, or describe figures in text only. You manually insert all cross-references, check antecedent basis yourself, and send to your drafter for QA.

Total wall-clock time: 8–12 hours. Attorney billable time: 4–6 hours (claim generation, spec writing, manual QA).

Verdict:

Solve cuts time by 70% and centralizes review. DeepIP is faster than writing from scratch but slower than an integrated platform.

Workflow 2: Claim-First Drafting (User Supplies Claims)

Solve Intelligence
DeepIP

Your client has well-drafted claims from a foreign associate, and you need a matching US specification. You paste the claims into Solve, and it generates a full spec with proper antecedent basis for every element. You review, add any prosecution notes or Markman context, and Solve auto-generates figures with labels tied to the spec language. You run Solve's QA check (which highlights any missing antecedent basis), fix two small issues, and file.

Total time: 45 minutes.

You paste claims into DeepIP, get a spec draft, and then manually review and edit in Word. You manually write or commission figure descriptions, and you verify antecedent basis by hand.

Total time: 2–3 hours.

Verdict:

Solve is 3–4x faster for this workflow.

Workflow 3: Auto-Updating Spec & Figures After Claim Edits

Solve Intelligence
DeepIP

During prosecution, the examiner issues an office action rejecting claims 1–5 over a single reference. Your attorney drafts an amendment narrowing claims 1–3. In Solve, you mark which claims changed and hit "regenerate spec." Solve automatically updates the specification to match the narrower claim scope, regenerates figures to match the new claim boundaries, and maintains consistent terminology throughout. You review the changes (usually 5 minutes), approve, and file the amendment.

You revise claims in Word. You then manually re-read your entire specification to spot what needs to change (e.g., removed limitations, new claim dependencies). You edit the spec by hand, manually revise figure descriptions, and double-check cross-references. If figures were generated externally, you commission new versions.

Total time: 2–4 hours per amendment.

Verdict: Solve saves 2–3 hours per office action; DeepIP requires manual rework for every claim change.

Verdict:

Solve saves 2–3 hours per office action; DeepIP requires manual rework for every claim change.

Security, confidentiality & data residency

Why Security Matters for Patent Practitioners
Patent attorneys hold some of the most sensitive information in the legal system: unpublished inventions, trade secrets, and strategic R&D roadmaps. These assets must remain confidential until public filing—and sometimes long after. Using an AI tool that trains on client data, shares data with third parties, or stores data in uncontrolled jurisdictions is not just a feature choice; it's an ethical obligation breach.

Data Protection Comparison

Solve Intelligence
DeepIP
Data Used for AI Training
No—client data is never used for model fine-tuning, feature development, or any retraining
Not publicly specified; assumed retained for analytics but not retraining
Data Retention Duration
90 days (operational only); no long-term archival for training or analytics
Not publicly documented; inferred from Word/365 tenant policies
Encryption in Transit
TLS 1.3, all API calls
TLS 1.3 (via Microsoft 365 transport)
Encryption at Rest
AES-256, all databases
AES-256 (via Azure/Microsoft 365)
Third-Party Access
Strictly prohibited; quarterly audits verify no vendor or partner access
Governed by Microsoft's data-sharing agreements; patent-specific access limited by Word scope
Audit & Certification
SOC2 Type II (annual), ISO 27001 (annual), GDPR Processor Agreement on file
SOC2 Type II (annual), ISO 27001 (annual); GDPR Processor Agreement available
Data Residency Options
US (default), UK, EU—selectable per tenant
Region determined by Microsoft 365 tenant; no patent-specific residency control
Compliance with Attorney Duties
Exceeds ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality) and 1.15 (safeguarding property); explicit written commitment
Compliant with ABA Model Rules; data governance subject to Microsoft's broader policies

Takeaway

Both tools meet minimum legal-compliance baselines. However, Solve goes further: it eliminates training-data risk entirely, offers granular data residency for multi-jurisdictional practices, and publishes explicit commitments that reduce legal and compliance liability for your firm.

Pricing, licensing & ROI

Solve Intelligence Pricing Model

Solve uses transparent, per-seat licensing with volume discounts for teams:

  • Starter Tier (1–10 users): Standard per-seat rate
  • Growth Tier (11–50 users): 15–20% discount per seat
  • Enterprise Tier (50+ users): Custom pricing with dedicated support

All tiers include cloud hosting, figure generation, prosecution tools, and invention harvesting. Pricing is visible during self-serve trial; no surprise contract terms.

DeepIP Pricing Model

DeepIP operates on a sales-led model: pricing upon request after an enterprise conversation. Typical contracts are 12 or 24-month commitments with annual true-ups based on usage.

ROI of AI Patent Drafting

DeepIP operates on a sales-led model: pricing upon request after an enterprise conversation. Typical contracts are 12 or 24-month commitments with annual true-ups based on usage.

The financial case for AI-assisted drafting rests on three pillars:

All tiers include cloud hosting, figure generation, prosecution tools, and invention harvesting. Pricing is visible during self-serve trial; no surprise contract terms.

Time Savings:

  • Traditional drafting: 20–40 billable hours per application (small team) to 8–12 hours per application (experienced drafter)
  • AI-assisted (Solve): 3–5 billable hours per application (attorney review + edits) + 2–3 hours paralegals support = 5–8 total hours
  • Savings: 60–80% reduction in drafting time per application

Capacity Without Headcount:

  • A 5-person IP team drafting 100 applications per year (typical for a boutique) currently uses ~1.5 FTE for drafting.
  • With Solve, the same team drafts 100 applications using ~0.5 FTE, freeing 1 FTE for prosecution, client work, or matter growth.
  • Cost avoidance: ~$150K–$200K per FTE saved per year (salary + overhead).

Quality & Reduced Rework:

  • AI-assisted drafting with built-in QA (antecedent basis checks, terminology consistency, claim-structure validation) reduces office-action amendments by ~15–25%.
  • Fewer amendments = faster prosecution, lower client costs, fewer partner-review cycles, and higher realization rates.

What to Ask Vendors About Pricing

When evaluating AI patent drafting tools, use this checklist:

  1. Is pricing per-seat, per-matter, or usage-based? (Per-seat is most predictable for law firms.)
  2. Are all features included in the base price, or are figure generation, prosecution tools, and invention harvesting add-ons? (Solve includes all.)What is the minimum commitment (1 year, 2 years, month-to-month)? (Shorter = lower switching cost.)
  3. Are there volume discounts for 10+ or 50+ users? (Essential for firm-wide adoption.)
  4. Is there a free trial or pilot period before commitment? (Non-negotiable for organizational fit assessment.)
  5. What happens to your data if you cancel? (Should be automatically deleted within 30–90 days.)
  6. Does pricing include updates, new features, and support, or are those a-la-carte? (All-inclusive is preferred.)

1. Pricing model

  • Seat‑based enterprise pricing;
  • No token limits;
  • Point three

2. ROI

  • Time saved;
  • Capacity increase;
  • Higher billable hours

3. Pricing model

  • Item one these pages give you neutral, attorney‑friendly breakdowns?
  • Item two these pages give you neutral?
  • Item three these pages give you attorney‑friendly breakdowns of features?
  • Item fourth these pages give you neutral?

As result

Save up to 50%

of your time

Capacity up to 200%

Short description

Up to 50% increase

in the number of paid hours

Implementation & adoption

Solve Intelligence Onboarding

Solve's implementation process is designed for law firms rolling out AI to 10–200+ users:

Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1–2)

  • Kick-off call with your practice leadership, IT/compliance team, and a cross-section of target users;
  • Custom claim templates built to match your practice areas (software, biotech, mechanical, etc.);
  • Role-based access setup (partners, associates, paralegals, staff) with appropriate permissions;
  • Single sign-on (SSO) integration with your existing identity provider

Phase 2: Pilot (Weeks 3–6)

  • 5–10 selected attorneys and paralegals begin using Solve on real matters under guided supervision;
  • Weekly feedback calls to surface friction points, train on workflows, and refine templates;
  • Tracking of time savings, adoption blockers, and user confidence metrics

Phase 3: Scale (Weeks 7–12)

  • Firm-wide rollout to all target users;
  • Train-the-trainer program: one power user per office/practice area becomes internal champion;
  • Integration with your matter-management system (LexisNexis, Clio, Woodpecker) via APIs;
  • Ongoing support: monthly calls, quarterly business reviews, and continuous training content

Outcomes:

  • 85%+ user adoption within 90 days
  • Measurable time savings (typically 60–70% per application) within first 30 days
  • Compliance and security certifications validated for board/audit discussions

DeepIP Pricing Model

DeepIP's implementation is lighter:

  • Self-serve trial: Access to the plugin via Word add-in store; documentation and tutorial videos
  • Limited onboarding support: Email or chat support for setup issues
  • Rollout: Users download the add-in themselves; no centralized provisioning

Outcomes

DeepIP's implementation is lighter:

  • Individual productivity improvements for early adopters
  • Slower, more organic firm-wide adoption (6–12 months typical)
  • Minimal upfront training or change management effort

FAQs – Solve Intelligence vs DeepIP

What to read next

Explore these resources to deepen your understanding of AI patent drafting and data security:

  1. Security & Confidentiality: How patent attorneys should evaluate AI tools for data security and confidentiality – A deep dive into SOC2, ISO 27001, data residency, and ethical obligations under ABA Model Rules 1.6 and 1.15.
  2. Data Residency Explained: Data residency and where your patent data lives – A guide to regional hosting, GDPR compliance, and how to structure your AI-tool stack for multi-jurisdictional practices.
  3. Our Onboarding Guide: From first user to full adoption: Implementing AI patent drafting in your firm – Step-by-step playbook for law firms rolling out Solve to 20–200+ users, with change management, metrics, and best practices.
  4. See How Firms Like Yours Use Solve: Case studies and testimonials from IP teams – Real workflows, time savings, and adoption stories from AmLaw firms, boutique practices, and in-house counsel using Solve for drafting, prosecution, and invention management.

Ready to Compare in Your Workflow?

The best way to understand the difference between Solve and DeepIP is to experience it hands-on with your actual workflows.

Request a Personalized Comparison Demo – Our patent-attorney specialists will walk you through:

  • How Solve handles your firm's typical drafting workflows (claims, spec, figures, office actions)
  • Security, data residency, and compliance for your specific jurisdiction and practice areas
  • Time savings and ROI based on your current matter volume and team size
  • Integration with your existing tools (matter management, Word, email, etc.)
  • Pricing and licensing tailored to your team size

No generic product tour. No sales pressure. Just a real conversation about whether Solve is the right fit for your firm.

Ready to see Solve in your workflow?

Download our AI Patent Drafting Evaluation Checklist – A step-by-step guide to comparing patent drafting tools on security, workflow fit, pricing, and adoption support.