AI-powered patent prosecution and drafting platform focused on European Patent Office work. Core feature is an EPO examiner statistics dashboard that surfaces behavioural data on individual examiners to inform prosecution strategy. Also automates patent specification drafting, IDS citation formatting (PTO/SB/08), office action response generation, and invalidity argument creation. The examiner dashboard and drafting tools appear to be separate modules — unclear whether examiner insights feed directly into response drafting or require manual interpretation. London-based startup, founded 2022 (Tracxn; product may have launched 2023 per TLTF), 2-10 employees, unfunded. Pricing at $495/user/month (introductory). Not listed in major 2026 AI patent tool roundups — very low market visibility compared to PatentPal, Specifio, Solve Intelligence, DeepIP.
Who It’s For
- Patent attorneys/agents handling EPO prosecution who want data-driven examiner insights
- IP boutiques looking to reduce drafting time on patent specifications
- In-house IP teams filing high volumes of European patent applications
What We Haven’t Verified
- No practitioner reviews or case studies found — feature claims are based on vendor materials and third-party listing descriptions
- The branded search term “added matter” overlaps with the EPO legal concept of impermissible amendments, making independent search traffic data unreliable
- USPTO vs EPO feature depth is unclear — marketing emphasises EPO but IDS formatting (PTO/SB/08) is US-specific
Workflows
Based on practitioner evidence, Added Matter is used in these workflows:
What practitioners struggle with
Real frustrations from legal professionals — the problems Added Matter addresses (or should address). Sourced from practitioner reviews, Reddit threads, and case studies.
IP law firm prosecution team handling 500+ active patent applications across USPTO, EPO, JPO, and CNIPA uses a different docketing system than the client's in-house team — deadlines get double-entered or missed in translation, office action responses are tracked in email threads, and neither side has real-time visibility into prosecution status
In-house IP team at a tech company files 200+ patent applications per year and each one takes a patent agent 40-60 hours to draft from the inventor disclosure — the bottleneck isn't the invention, it's the labour-intensive process of writing specifications, claims, and figures that meet USPTO requirements, while the patent agent's queue grows faster than they can work through it
Patent attorney conducting a prior art search for a client's invention spends 2-3 days manually searching USPTO, EPO, and non-patent literature databases — reading hundreds of abstracts, mapping claims to prior art references, and still worrying they missed something in a Chinese or Japanese patent that wasn't translated. The search costs the client $5,000-15,000 and the attorney still can't guarantee completeness
Litigation team preparing a patent invalidity defence needs to find prior art that anticipates or renders obvious each claim element — manually building claim charts across dozens of references takes weeks and costs $50-100K in associate time, and missing one key reference could lose the case
Patent prosecution attorney receives an office action and needs to decide whether to fight, amend, or appeal — but has no data on this specific examiner's grant rate, allowance patterns, or appeal success rate, so the strategy decision comes down to gut feel instead of evidence, and a wrong call burns through the client's prosecution budget on a losing strategy
IP department managing a portfolio of 500 patents across 12 art units has no systematic way to benchmark their prosecution outcomes — are their allowance rates above or below average? Are they spending more per patent than comparable portfolios? Nobody knows until the annual outside counsel review
Where it fits in your workflow
Community Data
Loading practitioner-sourced data…