&AI vs Patlytics: how they compare in 2026

Every capability &AI sells is model work: agentic prior art search across patents, nonpatent literature and product materials, claim chart evidence proposed element by element with a relevance rationale, claim constructions generated from the patent and its history, drafted contentions and expert reports, structured analysis across thousands of documents, and the assistant Andy working across all of it. &AI's pricing page says credits pay for the AI and the actions that use heavy compute, which is every action a customer buys. Without the models, what is left is a document store and an export formatter.

Every Patlytics module is model output. Its modules break claims into elements, find public material showing that products practice them, build cited infringement, invalidity and essentiality charts, and construe claims from the prosecution history. They also rank portfolios against competitors' products and draft applications and office action responses. A patent agent with more than 200 skills reasons over the results and packages them as emails, Word files or spreadsheets. Patlytics says its models are fine tuned on more than 50 million public patents, and its subprocessors include OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini. Without the models, Patlytics has no product.

The claim charts page says every citation points to a specific passage, figure or timestamp in the source, and that exported charts contain only exact quotations and references. The Charts post says each proposed piece of evidence carries a short relevance rationale, and reports that in an internal review of exported charts about 83 percent of the evidence in the final export was present in the first pass, for both invalidity and evidence of use charts. The test set is described only as exported charts, the measure is closer to recall than to accuracy, and no failure mode is named. Nothing states what the system does when no support is found. Drafted contentions and reports, which do contain generated text, carry no published measure. The terms say AI output can be incorrect and place responsibility for it on the user.

Every claim chart cell in Patlytics cites its source, with pin cites to paragraphs, columns and figures in invalidity charts and to the public material behind each infringement match. Patlytics says it audits sources for relevance and shows color coded confidence indicators. It claims 99 percent or better verbatim excerpt accuracy and says its models are built to guard against hallucinations, without describing a test set or naming failure modes.

For claim charts, the product page states that every citation requires the user's approval before it appears in any exported work product, and that no generated content appears in any part of an exported chart, from citations to boilerplate: only exact quotations and references. The product separates modes clearly (search, charts, drafts, tables, pitch and the Andy assistant), and &AI's stated purpose is that the AI handles volume while lawyers make the judgments. The approval gate applies to Charts only; Drafts and Andy produce generated text under a general expectation of review, with no equivalent gate.

The Patlytics agent suggests edits line by line for the user to accept or reject, and Patlytics says every step ends with the user's approval. Claim charts mark each element as a match or for review, and freedom to operate output is framed for review before a product ships. The terms require customers to evaluate all output for accuracy and completeness before relying on it. Patlytics plans autonomous agents for drafting and research, and nothing states what any agent may complete without approval or where it stops.

Early customers at large law firms used the platform to build thousands of claim charts and reported average time savings of 70 to 90 percent, according to &AI's February 2025 release. The product pages say its charts are used in active IPR and district court proceedings. The pricing page publishes average credits per claim chart and per search over the 90 days to July 2026, which shows production use at volume. No customer is named; the named practitioners on the home page are an advisory board, not customers.

Quinn Emanuel partner Yury Kapgan describes using Patlytics for infringement analysis, prior art, invalidity contentions, claim construction and charting. Patlytics announced adoptions by Foley & Lardner and Aspen Aerogels in November and December 2025. Asahi Kasei's Naoto Hori reports infringement investigations cut from months to hours, and $1,000 to $5,000 saved per detection report. An unnamed Am Law 100 practice group cut a 120 patent project from 100 hours to 20, turning a $47,500 cost into $38,000 of margin. An unnamed biotech saves $5,000 to $7,500 per application, and Rivian, Polsinelli, Cleary Gottlieb, Wiggin and Dana, Repligen and Klein Tools also appear as customers. The case studies are undated and give the customers' own estimates without a method. Patlytics reports 55 percent of the Am Law 100 on the platform, against 40 percent in April 2026.

The home and security pages say data stays private and under the customer's control, that &AI and its subprocessors never train on customer or client data, and that zero data retention agreements are in place with model providers. The Terms of Service, effective 18 June 2026, grant &AI a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable and transferable license to reproduce, modify, prepare derivative works of and otherwise use content users upload. They also state that &AI may make that content available to other users of the platform. The privacy policy lists artificial intelligence engine providers among the service providers that may receive information and contains no training commitment in its body. Nothing addresses privilege or work product, segregation between matters, or retention of uploaded case material.

Training on customer materials is barred by Patlytics' terms, which also keep usage data free of customer materials and require deletion of confidential information after the agreement ends. Customer data is siloed and segregated by organization, encrypted, and reached through least privilege access. Patlytics' March 2026 checklist for practitioners covers Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6, the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and the section 102 prior disclosure bars. That checklist asks whether work product is segregated by project and client matter, and Patlytics does not say that its own product segregates that way. The terms do not address privilege or how the model providers handle customer data.

&AI's terms state that AI sometimes produces incorrect or inapplicable outcomes and that the user is solely responsible for the accuracy and use of output. Self serve accounts are limited to verified patent practitioners and other approved users, which expressly include investment funds and universities, and the product is marketed for analysis ready for trial and for invalidity arguments. No statement says the output is not legal advice, nothing addresses competence or supervision duties when relying on a chart or contention, and no jurisdiction limits are stated.

Patlytics' terms describe the service as a tool and supporting resource for patent work that gives no legal advice and no guidance on professional or ethical duties to clients. Customers and their users remain solely responsible for evaluating, verifying and applying professional judgment to all AI output. Authorized users must be the customer's employees unless an order form allows otherwise. Patlytics' March 2026 checklist for practitioners covers confidentiality under Model Rule 1.6 and competence under Model Rule 1.1. Limits by jurisdiction are not addressed.

No responsible AI policy, testing regime, accountable owner or discussion of uneven output is published. &AI's post on its name sets out a view that AI handles volume and lawyers handle judgment, and its home page lists an advisory board of patent litigators; neither is a governance framework for model behavior.

Patlytics holds ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification for its AI management system, and its trust center offers the certificate and full audit report through an access request. Controls listed there include a documented board charter and control self assessments. Patlytics claims 99 percent or better verbatim excerpt accuracy and says outputs carry source auditing and confidence indicators, but publishes no test method or result. No accountable owner for the models is named, and nothing is disclosed about uneven output across technical fields, jurisdictions or claim types.

The security page states encryption in transit and at rest, single sign on and access control by role aligned to least privilege, and cites zero data retention agreements with model providers, so inputs are not retained by them. It says &AI's trust center lists subprocessors. The privacy policy states only that personal information is kept as long as necessary, says nothing about uploaded case material, and gives no deletion commitment or incident notification; the terms' perpetual content license survives termination. No retention or deletion period for &AI's own storage is published.

Data is encrypted at rest and in transit, with AES 256 for files in My Drive, and access follows least privilege. User history is kept for 90 days and can be deleted, and the terms require deletion of the customer's confidential information promptly after the agreement ends. Deletion of customer data on exit is among its listed controls, and nine subprocessors appear with roles and regions, all in the United States. Systems are monitored around the clock with on call staff in North America and Asia Pacific, and databases replicate to a secondary data center. Patlytics publishes no incident notification commitment or breach timeline.

&AI's terms provide the service and all output as is, with no warranty that output is free of errors. They state that the user is solely responsible for the accuracy, quality and usability of output and that &AI has no liability for it, and they cap aggregate liability at the greater of one hundred dollars or fees paid in the prior twelve months. The indemnity runs from the user to &AI. No vendor indemnity, output warranty or insurance position is published.

Under terms updated 27 August 2025, Patlytics gives an indemnity against third party claims that the platform's underlying software infringes intellectual property. Output generated from customer inputs or specifications, and use in combination with other products, is excluded. Remedies are a license, a modification or replacement, or termination with a pro rata refund of prepaid fees. Liability is capped at fees paid in the prior 12 months, with indemnity obligations outside the cap and consequential damages excluded. Patlytics warrants professional work by skilled staff and no malicious code, gives no warranty on the accuracy of AI output, and leaves reliance on output to the customer. A cybersecurity insurance document sits on its trust center behind an access request, and the terms promise no insurance.

No integration into practice systems is published. The platform draws on patent and product data sources and exports charts with configurable formatting, and the Enterprise plan offers custom integrations, but no document management, Microsoft Word, docketing or matter management connection is named or documented.

Patlytics' plugin for ChatGPT Enterprise, built on Patlytics MCP, gives existing customers five read only tools. They cover semantic patent retrieval, patent lookup with full claims, non patent literature, the organization's private portfolios and its Patent Vault. Each user signs in with a Patlytics account, and results stay scoped to the organization. RPX Empower partnered with Patlytics in February 2026, and a Relativity integration has a waitlist after Relativity's investment. The agent exports Word and Excel files. No docketing, IP management or document management system is named.

The pricing page offers Enterprise customers single tenant architecture or self hosted models, and the terms and privacy policy state that information is transferred to and processed in the United States. No region choice is offered, the self hosted option is not described further, and the processing location for calls to third party models is not separated from storage.

Patlytics runs as a cloud service on Amazon Web Services across multiple United States regions, with Auth0 and Datadog also in the United States. Its language model providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Gemini, and its document parser, Reducto, are listed in the United States. Databases replicate in real time to a secondary data center. No customer choice of region, single tenant option or on premises deployment is published.

The security page says &AI holds a SOC 2 Type II attestation and that the report can be requested through its trust center, which also lists certifications and subprocessors. The auditor, the report period and whether the request is self serve are not stated outside the trust center.

Patlytics' trust center offers its ISO 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certificates and full reports and its SOC 2 Type 2 report through an access request. A penetration test summary, a security overview, its cybersecurity insurance and its policies sit behind the same request. NCC Group and A-LIGN are named as its penetration testers. Controls listed openly include encryption key restrictions, firewall access limits, background checks, vulnerability monitoring and deletion of customer data on exit. Report dates and auditors sit inside the documents, which open after the request.

The security page refers to agreements with &AI's model providers for zero data retention, the privacy policy lists artificial intelligence engine providers among its service providers, and the Enterprise plan offers self hosted models. No model, provider or version is named on the site or in the terms, and no change notification is described; the terms reserve the right to change the services without notice.

OpenAI, Anthropic and Google's Gemini are Patlytics' language model subprocessors, with Reducto for AI document parsing, each in the United States. Patlytics says its own models are fine tuned on more than 50 million public patents. No model or version is named for any module, and no notice is promised when a provider changes. Its ChatGPT plugin, launched on 17 September 2026, keeps zero data retention through the integration.

The pricing page publishes credits at $0.40 each with no commitment, a Pro plan at $625 per user per month including 2,500 credits with further credits at $0.25, a 20 percent annual discount, and custom Enterprise terms. An Opportunities option costs $175 per user and $50 per attorney who is not a user. The page converts the unit into work: over the 90 days to July 2026 an average claim chart used 241 credits and an average prior art search 176, so a chart costs $96.40 or $48.20 depending on plan. The terms add automatic renewal and a seven day trial with 1,000 credits. What implementation adds is not stated, and Enterprise rates are withheld.

No price, tier or unit of charge is published. Patlytics' terms put fees in an order form, with annual renewals, 60 days' notice before a renewal increase, and no refund of fees paid. Patlytics states its value in savings instead, claiming claim charts that once took more than $30,000 of attorney time finished for a fraction of that.

&AI names law firms from the Am Law 100 to IP boutiques, plaintiff and defense counsel, and in house teams for litigation preparation, infringement mining and transactions. It covers invalidity under sections 101, 102, 103 and 112, evidence of use, IPR and district court work. Its comparison page says work centered on prosecution and drafting is better served by a named competitor. Patent coverage is described as major jurisdictions without a list, and government use is not addressed.

Patlytics serves law firms and in house IP teams, and limits authorized users to the customer's employees unless an order form says otherwise. Modules cover infringement, invalidity, freedom to operate across jurisdictions, portfolio analysis, claim construction, drafting, office actions and invention disclosures. Standard essential patent work spans cellular, wireless, video and audio coding and memory standards, and life sciences drafting adds sequence listings and chemical structures. Patlytics cites more than 130 million patents and 300 million literature items, while its invalidity page gives 70 million patent publications and 250 million non patent publications. No list of patent offices or date range is given for the collection.