Solve Intelligence Review 2026: AI for Patent Claim Amendments
Quick Verdict: 4.3 / 5
Solve Intelligence is one of the most focused AI tools in the patent law space — built specifically for claim amendment and Office Action response workflows, not for general patent drafting or analytics. For patent prosecution attorneys who spend significant time responding to USPTO rejections, it addresses a genuinely underserved need. Pricing lacks transparency (contact required), which holds it back from a higher score, but the niche focus is a genuine competitive advantage.
| — | — |
| Best for | Patent prosecution attorneys, solo patent agents, IP boutiques |
| Core function | Claim amendment generation and Office Action response |
| Pricing | Contact for pricing |
| Free trial | Not publicly available |
| Verdict | Highly specialized — worth evaluating if prosecution volume is high |
What Is Solve Intelligence?
Solve Intelligence is an AI-powered platform designed specifically for patent claim amendments and Office Action responses. Where most legal AI tools aim to be broadly useful across practice areas, Solve Intelligence has made a deliberate bet on a narrow slice of patent prosecution: the moment a USPTO examiner rejects claims and an attorney must decide how to respond.
The company has received venture capital funding and positions itself at the intersection of patent law and applied AI. Its core thesis is that claim amendment is one of the most cognitively demanding and time-intensive tasks in patent prosecution — and one that follows enough structured patterns to be meaningfully augmented by AI.
Unlike patent drafting tools (which generate new applications from invention disclosures) or patent analytics tools (which analyze prior art landscapes), Solve Intelligence focuses almost entirely on the Office Action response lifecycle:
- Parsing what the examiner rejected and why
- Identifying which claims are at risk
- Suggesting specific language changes to differentiate from cited prior art
- Generating proposed amended claim sets for attorney review
This is not a tool for writing initial applications. It is a tool for defending and refining claims that have already been filed.
Core Features
Claim Amendment Generation
The flagship feature. Solve Intelligence analyzes the existing claim language, the examiner’s rejection grounds (102, 103, 112), and cited prior art references to propose targeted amendments. The system understands claim hierarchy — independent claims, dependent claims, and how narrowing one affects the others.
The output is not a finished amendment ready to file. It is a structured set of proposed edits that the attorney then reviews, modifies, and finalizes. This keeps the attorney in control while eliminating the blank-page problem of starting an amendment from scratch.
Office Action Analysis
Before suggesting amendments, the platform parses the Office Action itself. It identifies rejection types, maps which claims are affected by which rejections, and surfaces the key differentiating language cited by the examiner. This analysis step saves time that would otherwise be spent manually reading and annotating the action.
For practitioners handling high prosecution volume, this parsing alone can recover meaningful time per case.
Prior Art Differentiation
Solve Intelligence compares the claimed invention against the cited prior art references and identifies where the current claim language overlaps with the prior art, and where differences exist that could be leveraged in an amendment or argument. The system helps attorneys identify the most defensible amendment paths rather than defaulting to the narrowest possible claims.
Claim Broadening and Narrowing Suggestions
Beyond pure amendments, the platform offers strategic guidance on claim scope. It can suggest whether a particular rejection is better addressed by narrowing claims (limiting scope to avoid prior art) or by arguing the examiner’s interpretation is incorrect (traversing the rejection). This is not legal advice generation — it is a structured decision-support layer.
Who It’s Built For
Patent prosecution attorneys are the primary user. Specifically, practitioners who handle significant volume of USPTO rejections and spend meaningful hours per week drafting Office Action responses will see the highest return.
Solo patent agents are a strong secondary audience. Solo practitioners often lack associates to handle the drafting workload, and Solve Intelligence can function as a leverage tool — allowing one practitioner to handle more files without sacrificing response quality.
IP boutiques and specialized patent firms are well-positioned for the tool. Boutiques typically handle more prosecution per attorney than full-service firms, and the prosecution-specific focus aligns with their practice mix.
Large firm patent departments may find value, but integration with existing workflows, docketing systems, and firm-wide technology decisions complicates the evaluation. The tool does not appear primarily designed for BigLaw-scale deployment with complex IT governance requirements.
Transactional IP attorneys and those focused on patent strategy, licensing, or litigation are not the target audience. The tool is built for prosecution, not analysis or transactions.
How It Compares
Solve Intelligence vs. DeepIP
DeepIP focuses heavily on patent specification drafting — generating new patent applications from invention disclosures. The tools occupy adjacent but distinct parts of the patent workflow. If you need help drafting initial filings, DeepIP is more relevant. If you need help responding to examiner rejections, Solve Intelligence is the more targeted choice. Some practices may benefit from using both at different stages.
Solve Intelligence vs. Patlytics
Patlytics is an analytics-oriented patent AI platform. It excels at landscape analysis, prior art searching, and portfolio management. It does not specialize in claim amendment or Office Action response drafting. Patlytics answers “where does this patent portfolio stand relative to the competitive landscape?” Solve Intelligence answers “how should I amend these claims in response to this rejection?” These are different questions, and attorneys with both needs may find themselves evaluating both tools separately.
Solve Intelligence vs. Manual Prosecution
The baseline comparison is simply not using the tool. Experienced patent prosecutors have developed their own amendment workflows over years of practice. The question Solve Intelligence must answer is whether its AI-generated suggestions are useful enough to save time without creating new quality control burdens. Based on the tool’s design philosophy, it appears to position itself as a drafting accelerator rather than a replacement for attorney judgment — which is the correct framing for building trust with experienced patent practitioners.
Pros and Cons
Pros
- Highly specialized focus on the most time-intensive part of patent prosecution
- Claim amendment suggestions grounded in cited prior art analysis
- Reduces blank-page friction for Office Action responses
- Office Action parsing saves manual review time
- VC-backed with active product development
Cons
- No public pricing — contact required creates friction in evaluation
- Narrow scope means it does not address other patent workflow needs
- No publicly documented integrations with major docketing platforms
- Limited third-party reviews and user testimonials available
- Free trial availability is unclear
Pricing
Solve Intelligence does not publish pricing on its website. Interested firms must contact the company directly for a demo and pricing discussion. This is common for enterprise legal technology but creates friction for small firms and solo practitioners who prefer to evaluate tools without a sales conversation.
Recommendation: Request a demo and ask specifically about per-seat pricing, minimum commitment terms, and whether a trial period is available before signing a contract.
FAQ
Is Solve Intelligence compliant with USPTO rules on AI use in prosecution?
AI-assisted patent prosecution has become an active area of regulatory attention. The USPTO has issued guidance requiring practitioners to disclose AI assistance in certain contexts and to take responsibility for the accuracy of AI-generated content. Solve Intelligence positions its output as drafts for attorney review, not finished filings — which aligns with the principle that attorney judgment remains the governing standard. Attorneys should review current USPTO guidance on AI disclosure obligations and confirm the tool’s current compliance posture directly with the vendor.
Does it work across all technology areas?
Patent prosecution AI tools perform differently across technology domains. Tools trained heavily on software and electronics patents may produce weaker output for biotech, chemistry, or mechanical inventions. Before committing, test the platform against claim sets from your actual practice areas to evaluate performance in your specific domain.
Does Solve Intelligence integrate with docketing software?
No publicly documented integrations with major docketing platforms (Anaqua, CPI, Salesforce-based docketing systems) appear to be available. This is a meaningful gap for firms that want AI tools embedded in their prosecution workflow rather than operating as standalone applications. This question should be raised directly with the vendor.
What is the learning curve for new users?
The tool is designed for patent practitioners rather than general legal users, so onboarding should be relatively straightforward for attorneys already familiar with prosecution workflow. The more relevant question is how much time it takes to develop trust in the system’s suggestions — which typically requires reviewing outputs against cases where the attorney already knows the right answer.
How does Solve Intelligence handle data security and client confidentiality?
Patent prosecution involves sensitive and often not-yet-public invention disclosures. Data security is a threshold concern. Before deploying any AI tool in prosecution, firms should obtain a Data Processing Agreement from the vendor, understand whether client data is used for model training, confirm data residency and encryption standards, and review the vendor’s SOC 2 certification status or equivalent. These questions should be answered in writing before any client data enters the system.
Bottom Line
Solve Intelligence occupies a distinct and underserved position in the legal AI market. Rather than competing for general-purpose legal AI market share, it has focused on a specific, high-value task: helping patent prosecution attorneys respond to USPTO Office Actions more efficiently.
For practices with high prosecution volume, that focus is a feature. The tool is not trying to do everything; it is trying to do one thing well. Whether it succeeds will depend on the quality of its amendment suggestions across your specific technology areas — which is why a demo with real cases from your practice is the right evaluation method.
The lack of pricing transparency is a genuine friction point, particularly for smaller firms and solo agents who are price-sensitive and prefer self-service evaluation. This is the tool’s most significant commercial weakness.
Recommended if: You handle high volumes of USPTO Office Actions and spend significant weekly hours drafting claim amendments. The efficiency gain in that specific workflow may justify the investment.
Evaluate carefully if: You need a general-purpose patent AI or require documented integrations with your existing docketing infrastructure.
See All AI Tools for Patent Lawyers →
Try Solve Intelligence → | See Best AI for Patent Lawyers →
Affiliate disclosure: We may receive a commission if you sign up through our links. This does not affect our editorial opinions.