Straight answers

Confidentiality

Where does my client's specification go?

If you run a local model through Ollama, it stays on your machine. The specification is read from your disk, passed to a model running on the same computer, and the drafted claims are written back to your disk. There is no server of ours anywhere in that path, because there is no server of ours at all for drafting.

If you configure a remote provider with your own key, the specification goes to that provider, exactly as it would if you pasted it into their web interface. That is a different arrangement and you should treat it as one.

So which should I use?

The local path is the one to use for anything unpublished or privileged. The remote path is faster and the stronger models draft better, which is a real tradeoff and not a trick question. Whether a particular remote provider is acceptable for a particular matter is your professional judgment to exercise, not ours to pre-empt, and it depends on facts we do not have: the client, the engagement terms, and the provider's own contractual commitments.

Does the tool phone home?

Not for drafting, ever. There is one exception and it exists only if you buy a licence: the binary renews that licence when it is close to expiring, roughly once a month, on launch. It sends the licence key and nothing else. No specification text, no matter identifiers, no usage data. Setting CD_NO_LICENSE_RENEWAL=1 switches it off. Without a paid licence, the binary makes no such call at all.

Is there any analytics on this website?

No. Nothing is loaded from a third party, and there is no tracker. A practitioner's browsing is itself suggestive of client work, so the decision was to launch without one rather than pick a vendor in a hurry.

What it does, and what it refuses to do

It does not assess patentability, novelty or non-obviousness

It is built not to. It does not assess patentability, novelty, non-obviousness or eligibility, and it does not search prior art. Those are legal determinations. This tool drafts claim language and scores drafting craft: support, definiteness, form, differentiation. The scoring prompt refuses patentability questions on purpose, and the refusal is printed in the output rather than hidden.

The output is not filing-ready

It is R&D-grade and every output says so. It is drafting input for a licensed practitioner who reviews every limitation against the specification and exercises their own judgment. Treat it as a first pass from a capable but unsupervised junior: worth having, never sent out unread.

It does not replace an attorney

It is a drafting aid for licensed patent attorneys and agents, and for people working under their supervision. It is not addressed to the general public and it does not practise law.

What is it actually good at?

Producing a broad set of continuation claim candidates from a specification you have already filed, quickly, so you are editing rather than starting from a blank page. It also flags per-claim defects (antecedent basis, support, indefiniteness) for you to resolve. Our own findings say the critique is the load-bearing part and the numeric score is the weakest part, and the benchmark page says so too.

Running it

What does it cost?

The tool is free to download and use. If you run local models, there is no marginal cost at all. If you use a remote provider, you pay that provider directly with your own key; nothing routes through us and we do not mark it up.

What hardware do I need?

For local models, memory is the binding constraint, and the honest answer is that it depends on your specification's length rather than its complexity. The setup page asks what machine you have and names a model that fits, with the measured tradeoff stated rather than hidden.

How long does a draft take?

Across 131 measured runs over 10 real patent families and 15 remote models, the median was 78 seconds to a full set of about 13 claims, and 84% of runs finished inside three minutes. Two caveats that matter: those runs used remote models, so local inference on your own machine will be slower and depends on your hardware; and this measures how long the tool takes, not how much time it saves you, which is a different claim that we have not measured and therefore do not make.

My specification is enormous. Is that a problem?

Less than you would expect. Across those same runs, specification length did not predict drafting time (the correlation was -0.118 over specifications from 47 KB to 645 KB). The largest specification in the corpus drafted faster than a third of the smaller ones. Which model you choose matters far more than how long your document is, though the model's context window does have to fit the specification, which is what the setup page is for.

I have the claims. How do I get them into Word?

continuation-drafter export --draft claims.txt --out claims.docx, or pipe a drafting run straight into it. Your claim numbering is preserved exactly as drafted and never renumbered, since a continuation's claims are commonly numbered on from the parent. LaTeX is supported too, with --out claims.tex.

The exported document carries the maturity notice inside it, deliberately: an exported file gets read by people who never saw the terminal that produced it.

The project

Is this open source?

No. The binary is free to download and use, and it is proprietary. The source is not published.

Who is behind it?

It came out of internal R&D on continuation drafting and was extracted into a tool once it drafted end to end. The benchmark that the benchmark page reports is the same one used to decide which models ship in the guided setup.

Why should I believe the benchmark?

Because you can check it. The method is published, the models and families are named, and the limits are stated on the page rather than in a footnote: a single AI judge cannot reliably rank near-equal drafters, so the scores separate gross differences and nothing finer. That is a weaker claim than the ones you will read elsewhere in this category. It is also one you can verify.