Solve Intelligence

Name: Solve Intelligence
Brand: Solve Intelligence
Rating: 4.9 (16 reviews)

AI Native

AI for patents | Trusted by 500+ IP teams globally | Y Combinator S23

Est 2023|Valuation $367M|Raised $55.5M|37 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 12K|Web traffic 48K|FTEs 59|HQ London, England, GB

Published Oct 5, 2026

01Common complaints

Consider alternatives or run a competitive pilot when: 1. Word-native drafting is mandatory. If a practice requires in-Word workflows with macros, numbering, and redlines that cannot be changed, products with native Word integration may be a better fit. 2. The primary need is only specification boilerplate and figures. A narrower, lower-cost tool that specializes in those functions may be more appropriate. 3. Budget sensitivity is high. If price transparency and low-cost options are required, consider alternatives with clearer pricing or lower entry cost. 4. Independent benchmarking is required for procurement decisions. Vendor-run benchmarking should be supplemented with an independent pilot and reference checks.

Deal disqualifiers / poor fit

Organizations that require strict, in-Word-only drafting workflows with complex templates and macros and that cannot adopt a separate editor
Solo practitioners or very small teams where subscription ROI is uncertain without clear pricing
Buyers needing transparent, self-serve pricing for rapid procurement

Known limitations (from public sources and community discussion)

Not a native Word plugin; drafting is done in a browser-based editor with import/export capabilities. This can create friction for firms that rely heavily on Word templates and macros.

Roadmap / future expansion (vendor/press reported)

Press reporting and vendor materials indicate plans to expand into additional analysis capabilities (e.g., freedom-to-operate, portfolio analysis, and enhanced charting) and to deepen support for life sciences and other technical areas. Buyers should confirm roadmap commitments and timelines directly with the vendor.

Compliance constraints

Terms of service include restrictions on uploading certain categories of sensitive personal data. Organizations should evaluate whether their invention disclosure processes could include sensitive personal data and adjust workflows accordingly.

02Why they buy

Key differentiators (as stated by vendor and observed in materials)

Broad workflow coverage spanning invention harvesting, drafting, prosecution response drafting, and claim charting in a single platform
Configurable drafting styles and templates that allow firms to encode firm-specific drafting preferences
Vendor-stated security and data residency controls intended to address confidentiality concerns for patent work

Where competitors have advantages

Native Word integration is a differentiator for competitors that embed into Word-centric workflows
Some competitors focus on narrower, lower-cost solutions for spec boilerplate and figures, which may be preferable for buyers with limited scope needs

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment

A vendor review platform shows a very highly rated sentiment across a limited sample. The small sample size reduces reliability for broad generalization. Examples of review excerpts published on review platforms include short statements describing substantial time savings and favorable impressions of the interface and language quality produced by the tool. Note on balance: Positive review snippets exist, but the sample is small and likely skewed toward early adopters or satisfied customers.

Vendor-published testimonials

The vendor website contains multiple testimonials claiming substantial time savings and improved quality. These are vendor-selected statements and are subject to selection bias; they should be corroborated with independent references or pilot data.

Community discussions

Community discussion threads provide more varied perspectives. Common practical trade-offs cited by practitioners include workflow friction related to non-Word-native editing and perceived cost relative to alternatives. Community commentary supports perceived product value but flags workflow integration and pricing as considerations.

Missing / limited review sources

Several mainstream review sources and enterprise review platforms either contain limited coverage or did not return results in the searches performed. This represents a gap in independent, large-sample feedback.

Vendor-published outcomes (indicative, not verified)

Vendor case studies and blog posts commonly report large efficiency gains. These case studies generally do not disclose baseline definitions, task scope, or independent verification metrics.

Limitation: Outcomes are vendor- or customer-reported and are subject to selection and reporting bias.

Press-reported traction

Press coverage includes executive quotes and cites some enterprise customers. Press interviews provide useful context but are not substitutes for audited performance data.

Practical diligence recommendation

For evaluation, request or run:

A side-by-side pilot on representative matters relevant to the buyer
Measured outcomes by task (hours saved by section, number of revision passes, error rates)
Documentation of human-in-the-loop QA processes to mitigate risks of filing errors or unsupported claim language

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit appears to be:

Law firms from small boutiques through large firms where drafting leverage affects margins
In-house IP teams ranging from small specialist groups to larger centralized teams handling high filing volume

Industries / verticals

Electronics and software
Mechanical and industrial devices
Life sciences, biotech, and pharmaceutical domains

Roles and personas

Decision makers: IP partners, practice group leaders, heads of IP, innovation counsel
End users: patent attorneys, patent agents, paralegals, invention disclosure coordinators

Strong-fit pain points

High drafting volume with fixed-fee pressure
Need to standardize drafting quality and style across multiple practitioners and offices
Bottlenecks in office action response throughput
Repetitive claim chart production needs

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Solve Intelligence is a B2B generative-AI platform designed for patent and intellectual property workflows. It provides a browser-based document editor with workflow tools intended to speed and standardize: - Invention harvesting (structured invention disclosures) - Patent drafting (full and partial applications, with style customization) - Patent prosecution (office action response drafting with citations) - Claim charting (interactive, citation-backed charts) The vendor positions the product as an AI-assisted system for patent work, reporting time savings and increased drafting throughput while retaining attorney review for final output.

Target market and market positioning

**Primary buyers/users** - Patent law firms (boutiques through large firms) - In-house IP teams (manufacturing, pharmaceutical, technology) - Patent agents and solo practitioners **Positioning** - Marketed as a platform that covers multiple patent workflows rather than a single feature - Described by the vendor as emphasizing security controls and style customization - Vendor materials emphasize adoption by a number of IP teams and legal professionals as a signal of traction

Get a comprehensive analysis of Solve Intelligence including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Oct 5, 2026

01Common complaints

Consider alternatives or run a competitive pilot when:

Word-native drafting is mandatory. If a practice requires in-Word workflows with macros, numbering, and redlines that cannot be changed, products with native Word integration may be a better fit.
The primary need is only specification boilerplate and figures. A narrower, lower-cost tool that specializes in those functions may be more appropriate.
Budget sensitivity is high. If price transparency and low-cost options are required, consider alternatives with clearer pricing or lower entry cost.
Independent benchmarking is required for procurement decisions. Vendor-run benchmarking should be supplemented with an independent pilot and reference checks.

Deal disqualifiers / poor fit

Organizations that require strict, in-Word-only drafting workflows with complex templates and macros and that cannot adopt a separate editor
Solo practitioners or very small teams where subscription ROI is uncertain without clear pricing
Buyers needing transparent, self-serve pricing for rapid procurement

Known limitations (from public sources and community discussion)

Not a native Word plugin; drafting is done in a browser-based editor with import/export capabilities. This can create friction for firms that rely heavily on Word templates and macros.

Roadmap / future expansion (vendor/press reported)

Compliance constraints

02Why they buy

Key differentiators (as stated by vendor and observed in materials)

Broad workflow coverage spanning invention harvesting, drafting, prosecution response drafting, and claim charting in a single platform
Configurable drafting styles and templates that allow firms to encode firm-specific drafting preferences
Vendor-stated security and data residency controls intended to address confidentiality concerns for patent work

Where competitors have advantages

Native Word integration is a differentiator for competitors that embed into Word-centric workflows
Some competitors focus on narrower, lower-cost solutions for spec boilerplate and figures, which may be preferable for buyers with limited scope needs

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment

A vendor review platform shows a very highly rated sentiment across a limited sample. The small sample size reduces reliability for broad generalization.

Examples of review excerpts published on review platforms include short statements describing substantial time savings and favorable impressions of the interface and language quality produced by the tool.

Note on balance: Positive review snippets exist, but the sample is small and likely skewed toward early adopters or satisfied customers.

Vendor-published testimonials

Community discussions

Missing / limited review sources

Vendor-published outcomes (indicative, not verified)

Vendor case studies and blog posts commonly report large efficiency gains. These case studies generally do not disclose baseline definitions, task scope, or independent verification metrics.

Limitation: Outcomes are vendor- or customer-reported and are subject to selection and reporting bias.

Press-reported traction

Press coverage includes executive quotes and cites some enterprise customers. Press interviews provide useful context but are not substitutes for audited performance data.

Practical diligence recommendation

For evaluation, request or run:

A side-by-side pilot on representative matters relevant to the buyer
Measured outcomes by task (hours saved by section, number of revision passes, error rates)
Documentation of human-in-the-loop QA processes to mitigate risks of filing errors or unsupported claim language

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit appears to be:

Law firms from small boutiques through large firms where drafting leverage affects margins
In-house IP teams ranging from small specialist groups to larger centralized teams handling high filing volume

Industries / verticals

Electronics and software
Mechanical and industrial devices
Life sciences, biotech, and pharmaceutical domains

Roles and personas

Decision makers: IP partners, practice group leaders, heads of IP, innovation counsel
End users: patent attorneys, patent agents, paralegals, invention disclosure coordinators

Strong-fit pain points

High drafting volume with fixed-fee pressure
Need to standardize drafting quality and style across multiple practitioners and offices
Bottlenecks in office action response throughput
Repetitive claim chart production needs

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Invention harvesting (structured invention disclosures)
Patent drafting (full and partial applications, with style customization)
Patent prosecution (office action response drafting with citations)
Claim charting (interactive, citation-backed charts)

The vendor positions the product as an AI-assisted system for patent work, reporting time savings and increased drafting throughput while retaining attorney review for final output.

Target market and market positioning

Primary buyers/users

Patent law firms (boutiques through large firms)
In-house IP teams (manufacturing, pharmaceutical, technology)
Patent agents and solo practitioners

Positioning

Marketed as a platform that covers multiple patent workflows rather than a single feature
Described by the vendor as emphasizing security controls and style customization
Vendor materials emphasize adoption by a number of IP teams and legal professionals as a signal of traction

Get a comprehensive analysis of Solve Intelligence including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →