Installing, or running your first audit?
Install from the Marketplace, the four steps of an audit, how to read a banded verdict, and sample reports you can download and read before setting anything up.
User guideThis page answers the questions the Marketplace listing cannot: which AI provider keys IPVerifier needs, where to get each one, what a test licence covers, how quotas work, and how your keys are handled. Installation and your first audit are covered on the user guide; this page picks up where the cost and licensing questions begin.
Last updated: October 30, 2026 · For IPVerifier 1.0.1
Most of what people arrive needing is already written down. This saves you reading the wrong page.
Install from the Marketplace, the four steps of an audit, how to read a banded verdict, and sample reports you can download and read before setting anything up.
User guideA stale task pane, a jump that did not land, an audit that refused to run, progress bars that stopped. The six usual causes and their fixes are listed with the guide.
TroubleshootingWhat you must supply, what we supply, who you pay, what a test licence covers and what happens when it runs out. That is the rest of this page.
Keep readingIPVerifier is free to install. What costs money is the reasoning behind an audit, because an audit calls several independent AI providers for every assertion it checks. There are two ways that gets paid for, and which one applies to you depends only on what you are auditing.
So that you can evaluate IPVerifier without opening accounts anywhere, we let you run sample reports we provide on our own AI capacity. Three things are worth knowing before you rely on it:
If you want to see IPVerifier work on your material without setting anything up, you do not need keys for that either — send us a document and we will run the audit and send the report back, usually within two business days. How that works. Please send non-confidential material only.
An audit is adversarial by construction: separate providers argue the opposite sides of every assertion and a different one decides. That independence is the whole point — no model grades its own work — and it is why IPVerifier asks for more than one account rather than one.
| Provider | Why IPVerifier needs it | Where to create a key |
|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Claude |
One of the two voices that argue the assertion, and the stronger reader of long source text. | console.anthropic.com |
| Google Gemini |
Reconciles the two arguments into the verdict you read. Without it no verdict can be issued at all, so this one is not optional. | aistudio.google.com/apikey |
| xAI Grok |
The adversarial voice — its job is to attack the analysis and surface every assertion the source does not actually support. | console.x.ai |
| OpenAI GPT |
An independent fourth voice on findings the others dispute. Optional, and worth having on anything you will file or send to a client. | platform.openai.com/api-keys |
Each one is a normal developer account: sign up, add a payment method, create a key, paste it into IPVerifier. You will typically need to put a small amount of credit on each account before its key will answer — a key with no credit behind it is valid and still fails, which is the single most common setup problem we see.
| Set | What you get | Suitable for |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Google + one of Anthropic or xAI |
A verdict, with one side of the argument and a judge. It will run, and it will catch unsupported assertions. | Trying it on your own material. Not work you will hand to someone else. |
| Recommended Google + Anthropic + xAI |
Both sides argued by different providers, reconciled by a third. This is the configuration the published audits were run under. | Day-to-day review. |
| Full All four |
Adds an independent fourth voice on disputed findings. | Anything you will file, or sign your name to for a client. |
| On test licences | On your own keys | |
|---|---|---|
| Who you pay | Nobody. | Each AI provider, directly, at their published rates. IPVectors does not mark up, resell or meter your usage. |
| What limits you | A per-account run cap set by us. See the EULA. | Whatever credit and rate limits you hold with each provider. |
| When you hit it | Audits stop. Add your own keys to continue. | That provider's calls start failing. The pane names the provider so you know which account to top up. |
| What you can audit | Sample reports we provide, only. | Your own analysis, and additional sample runs you request. |
Before a run starts, the pane shows a pre-flight estimate of what that audit will cost in provider calls, so you can see the size of a job before committing to it rather than after.
The authoritative text is sections 6 and 7 of the EULA. Where this page and the EULA ever differ, the EULA governs.
IPVerifier audits an analysis. It does not produce one. Reporter is the other half: it starts from your invention rather than your keywords, searches patents and the published literature across jurisdictions, and produces the analysis that IPVerifier then puts on trial.
Reporter runs in two modes, and choosing the wrong one is the most common early mistake:
| Mode | The question it answers | Use it for |
|---|---|---|
| Landscape | Who is working in this space, and where is the white space? | Competitive intelligence, portfolio mapping, R&D direction, M&A diligence. |
| Prior art | Could this invalidate my claim? | Invalidity contentions, freedom-to-operate, IPR and PGR preparation, pre-litigation assessment. |
They are not two templates over one pipeline. Prior-art mode applies a hard priority-date gate — anything published on or after your subject's filing date is removed before scoring, because it cannot anticipate your invention — and scores for whether a reference discloses your specific claim elements. Landscape mode applies no date gate on purpose, and scores for technical overlap instead, because a patent filed last year is exactly what you want to see in a competitive read.
Reporter is not sold through the Marketplace and is not self-serve. Access is by request, and we will walk you through what it needs. Ask about Reporter.
CPARS is the Canonical Prior-Art Report Schema — the strict, validated format Reporter writes its findings into and IPVerifier reads them out of. It is the contract between the two halves.
You will see the name in report metadata and in the signed audit record, so it is worth knowing why it exists. A schema means every finding carries the same fields in the same shape every time: the claim element, its status, the verbatim passage offered as evidence, and where that passage came from. That is what makes an audit checkable rather than merely readable — an auditor can recompute the deterministic parts of a score from the record itself, and a run can be repeated and compared against an earlier one. A report that was free-form prose could be read, but it could not be re-examined this way.
The schema is versioned, and the version is written into every report, so a record stays interpretable after the format moves on.
Three real reports, unedited apart from a sample notice, are on the guide page if you would rather read finished output than a description of it: a claim-centric §103 report, a provenance appendix, and a prior-art report. Download the samples.
If you would like to watch a report being read and worked through rather than read one yourself, the full sessions are in the film room, by invitation.
It means IPVerifier itself is free to install, but running audits on your own material needs your own accounts with the AI providers listed above. You pay those providers directly. There is no IPVectors subscription, licence fee or per-audit charge.
Yes. Install it and run the sample reports we provide on our test licences — no keys, nothing to configure, capped per account. Or send us a non-confidential document and we will run the audit for you and send the report back.
Almost always credit rather than the key. A valid key on an account with no credit or no entitlement for the model returns a permission error, not an authentication error, so the key tests as real while the call still fails. Add credit on that provider's own billing page and try again. The pane names which provider failed.
No. Google is required, because without it no verdict can be issued. Beyond that, more providers means more independent voices and a stronger claim about the result — see the minimum, recommended and full sets above.
Yes, at any time, and it takes effect immediately. Removing them does not delete your audit history.
No. Your source material is never used to train models. What leaves your machine is covered by the EULA and the privacy policy.
That is your call to make against your own obligations, and audits do run on the IPVectors cloud rather than on your machine — so read the privacy policy and the EULA first. For anything you send us to run on your behalf, send non-confidential material only.
Word 2013 and later on Windows, Word 2016 and later on Mac, Word on the web, and Word in Microsoft 365 on both platforms. It runs as a task pane beside your document and needs an internet connection, because audits run on the IPVectors cloud.
It needs a verifiable translation first. Produce one in the translation tab and have your expert attest it; the audit then runs against the attested text and records that it did so.
No. IPVectors is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and is not registered to practise before the USPTO. IPVerifier supports the professional who signs the work; it does not replace them, and every conclusion belongs to the attorney who signs it.
IPVectors Inc. is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. IPVerifier supports the professional who signs the work; it does not replace them.