Great value. They keep the product updated with the machinations of the USPTO patentcenter site.

The value proposition is strong as this product does a great many functions. From IDS generation to claim proofing, it does it all.

The user interface can be a bit complicated at times.

As noted, this is an indispensable tool in preparing applications and responses for us. There is little more I can add to that (or need to, honestly).

Installation of this product is effortless. The product works quite well and is easy to use. Constantly being improved. Customer service is second-to-none - I wish all our IT projects were as well-supported and effective. I use this product constantly, and find that I can prepare applications and claims in a MUCH more efficient and affective manner when my process includes ClaimMaster. Further, not having to allow remote access to any of our documents is an absolute necessity. Its standalone nature is critical, as we have clients that forbid the use of any software that employs remote access and/or sending files over the Internet.

The only complaint I can think of is that certain phrasings confuse the software. It may be possible to use natural language processing/machine learning to address this shortcoming, but again, it would need to be implemented as a standalone system, for our purposes.

I like the good antecedent basis checker

I don't like this program slowing down and crashing MS word

It's been a major factor in improving the quality of my USPTO submissions.

It catches stuff. Running claim sets and application drafts through claimmaster is one of my essential quality checks.

Defining patent terms can be difficult and often fails. Sometimes I want a string (including spaces) to absolutely be interpreted as a claimed element for antecedent basis checks. I enter it into claimmaster and, if I'm lucky, it works.

Overall Claimmaster has provided itself to be an important tool for patent prosecution, especially claim review and IDS prepartion. There are many other helpful features.

The product makes claim review and updating in amendments and the original application a much easier task. The product does a great job of catching antecedent basis and claim numbering type of mistakes to supplement the practitioner review. The IDS tool to fill out IDSs with the patent publications has been a big time saver for staff. There are numerous other helpful features, such as checking the specification for reference number consistency.

Would be helpful to be able to add non-patent literatore to the IDS as part of the auto-fill feature. Would be great if there would be a way to manage cross referencing references in IDSs between related cases and autofill IDSs when references are added to one case.

It's a feature-rich product, so there will be some features that are real game changers even if you don't use everything on the menu. It's great for checking claims, drawings, numbering, etc.

Some features are a little buggy, but the ClaimMaster team seems to be constantly improving the product over time.

Very good experience, for the cost and performance it is great. And I can’t stress enough how good customer support is!

Automation of tasks, connecting and graphing patent families, amazing customer support

Petty maybe, but having to click on an empty field for entry instead of having the software accept typing automatically.

ClaimMaster is great at finding nuanced antecedent issues, as well as identifying figure number discrepancies in specifications.

It does not catch as many antecedent basis issues as I would like.

The features are difficult to match in other products costing twice as much. It works well, and they add new features to keep it competitive.

I don't really have any cons, although I look forward to more AI functionality cover time.

I've been a user of ClaimMaster since it initially came on the market. When I was at a large firm, I convinced it to buy multiple licenses and would insist that associates run reports through ClaimMaster before bringing me something to review.

The ability to begin preparation of Office Action responses and the diagnostic tools for reviewing documents for errors

Not much, really. Some parts of it I don't use because I already have good tools.

Overall, my experience is positive. Claim Master is an important part of my quality assurance process. I will continue to use Claim Master.

ClaimMaster does a good job at finding antecedent basis issues in the claims and the specification. I rely on ClaimMaster almost every day to make sure that my claims do not have 112(b) problems that can arise from missing antecedent basis issues. ClaimMaster is an important part of my patent preparation and prosecution practice. I do not believe a work product is complete unless I've checked it with ClaimMaster.

ClaimMaster is sometimes wrong. Fortunately, it tends to have a lot more false positives than false negatives. (False positive = flags an antecedent basis issue, but it's not; false negative = fails to flag an antecedent basis issue that does exist.) False negatives are quite rare, but they can pop up when the claim terms get complex. False negatives often happen when an adjective is used in front of a claim term (particularly in the specification), or when the claim term gets particularly complex (e.g., more than 2-3 words long). However, I would rather that Claim Master overflag possible issues and let me double check and resolve them. If I had to choose, I would much rather deal with false positives than false negatives. It can sometimes take a while to work, particularly if I have a long application and I ask it to do a full check of the specification and figures. During this time I can't switch windows within Word to work on something else, and that is a bit frustrating.

I have used ClaimMaster since it was first introduced. My experience has consistently been good, to the point where I would literally not want to write a patent without it.

ClaimMaster has many functions, but the part I like most is claim analysis. Claims are arguably the most important part of a patent. However, to be valid, the claims must follow many legal and logical rules - so much so that they are almost like short chunks of high-level computer code. As a result, it is all too easy to accidentally introduce errors. ClaimMaster quickly and easily scans claims and detects and highlights many of the most common patent claim construction errors. I find it to be an essential tool for my practice.

I have generally found the software to be easy to use, and have no complaints.

ClaimMaster offers a wide variety of tools, but I personally use only a very small number of tests: Two tools for claim proofreading (checking for errors and checking for antecedent problems) and one tool specification proofreading (checking part numbers). Tried the other tools - they may have potential, but currently require too much work on my side to filter the results - as most issues identified by the other tools are non-issues (maybe these tools will be more efficient as technology advances, but not at the moment).

Good tool for capturing typos and errors in claims, check for antecedent problems, and going over part numbers throughout the spec and the drawings.

Still requires manually reviewing all reported issues as most are "false negatives", especially when checking for antecedent problems (many terms may be a bit confusing, and automated tools don't always capture these correctly). Has some difficulties with proper interpretation of part numbers that appear in drawings with superscripts or subscripts.

It's a very useful tool for a patent practitioner. I've been using it for seven years and it is great for checking common mistakes in claim drafting

I really like the analysis of claims, including checking for errors and checking antecedent basis. I use it for office actions and new patent applications. It also has other useful utilities like creating summaries of the claims, checking a patent application, and showing claim trees in graphical form.

It could improve with improve tools for drafting a patent application, like using dynamic replacement of reference numbers (e.g., enter /100 and it replaces for mobile device 100)

On the whole, ClaimMaster has been a great time-saver for us, and it's helped us eliminate errors in our work.

ClaimMaster has been very useful for our firm as a tool for drafting and reviewing patent applications, automating IDS generation, and generating patent family trees. It can speed up patent drafting considerably, especially if I put together a parts list in advance, and use the "//#" notation to automatically insert part numbers. ClaimMaster almost always finds antecedent basis and/or reference number problems in draft applications; it helps us fix these before client review and filing.

I do wish the parsing features worked a little more rapidly, or more in the background - I can't use Word while they operate. I also get several false positives from antecedent basis and drawing reference number checks. These are easy to ignore, but would be great to resolve or customize.

Time is of the essence and accuracy in my field. ClaimMaster assists me with being more efficient and accurate. Thank you ClaimMaster!

I mostly use the IDS Generator to assist in preparing all of my IDS. It saves me a lot of time, and functions relatively well with only the occasional glitch. I was able to integrate the software into my current business processes effortlessly!

Occasionally the published dates get off and then throw off all subsequent reference dates. Not a big deal compared to the amount of overall time ClaimMaster saves me.

Saving time doing repetitive tasks.

Antecedent checking for claims. This is terrific. After you have checked your claims, the software can then enumerate every place in the specification where support can be found. Likewise, it can check part numbers and verify them versus the drawings. This is especially good for finding slight, unintended shifts in terminology. Finally, the software does a great job of manipulating claimsets during prosecution.

I recognize that the software is trying to help with some very hard conceptual processes and the ability to prepare responses ready for the lawyer looks like it could be helpful. But since it is so complicated, I think they need a white paper explaining not only how to use it, but the concept they had in mind when they designed it. This would augment the instructions.

Patent application quality is improved by adding machine-based revision in addition to manual proofreading.

ClaimMaster provides key application and claim review functionality for patent and office action drafting. The time saving utilities (claim renumbering, status indicator updating, etc.) are also very helpful. The ability to work offline is key in some instances.

Windows only. No native Mac OS version.

Claimmaster is great at detecting errors that are time consuming and difficult to detect manually. Using it to confirm dependencies, consistent reference number usage, antecedent basis, claim numbering, and the like is a great time saver.

There can be a large number of false errors. But sorting through these usually turns up other minor issues that are best corrected before filing anyway.

Overall, this is a really great tool for the money. It handles a lot of issues that are otherwise time consuming to identify. It makes the final product just a little more polished and professional, which is really important.

The ease at which I can quickly review for errors that are difficult to find it really wonderful. I can quickly ensure part numbers are correct in my spec, and there aren't claim issues. I also like the other tools like quickly generating a shell for my responses.

I wish it would automatically update the information panel as you resolve issues. The features that allow you to click around and find errors do not work well as you resolve the issues and continue clicking around. I find I have to run the tool several times to ensure I've found everything.

Good, it has been helpful in ensuring I produce high quality patent applications

That it has autocomplete features with terms used in claims or on part names. I also like the antecedant basis checking features.

That it is a subscription payment model and not a one-time payment model. Also, the tool seems to take too long to gather the information on terms, claims, etc. and seems to constantly re-parse the document and/or claims before I can use features. I understand that re-parsing is necessary to some extent, but the tool seems to be excessive with this.

Very friendly and fast customer service.

There was a time when I assumed it was an unnecessary luxury to use software such as this because I believed that a diligent practitioner would automatically catch errors related to items such as antecedence basis, labels, and reference numerals. Also, because I assumed such software was too expensive for procurement by small entities. I was wrong!! The software saves me a tremendous amount of time and identifies many types of errors that would be very time consuming and laborious to identify manually.

Nothing significant. However, I do not have enough experience with other such software to carry out a meaningful comparison.

It makes preparing an office action response more efficient

I really like the claim checking features as well as the ability to check the item numbers in my specification. Additionally the ability to make a flow chart from a method claim is great.

Really no complaints about features. I wish it was cheaper, or a one time purchase price.

With PCM, I can easily check for the most common claim issues with a couple clicks. I also love that I can verify part number consistency throughout specifications with equal ease. It sometimes incorrectly identifies AB issues, but nevertheless does an excellent job of determining whether it's a clear error or just something that needs double-checking. Overall, PCM has saved me tons of proofreading and lets me file patent documents knowing that there aren't any glaring issues.

The only and very minor issue is that the software occasionally misinterprets claim terms. Everything else is fantastic.

Looking for antecedent basis, Claim support in the specification,

I like almost everything. The use of the antecedent basis sometimes depends on the examiner. Some examiners are willing to use the claim instructions and some are inclined to use correct language.