Patentcloud vs PatentSight+: how they compare in 2026

The models are the engine of core capabilities layered on a product that would still function without them. What would survive their removal is substantial: a curated global patent database, Patent Search as a Boolean and bibliographic research tool, and Patent Vault as a portfolio management and collaboration workspace holding up to 100,000 patents with folders, projects and up to twenty collaborators. Those are database and workflow products in their own right. What the models power on top is real and named rather than decorative: Semantic Prior Art, described as running on the vendor's own machine learning to predict relationships between a patent and potential prior art and return ranked references across six jurisdictions; a generative AI Patent Summary that condenses each reference and highlights terms aligning with the claims of the patent at issue, shipped into Due Diligence in June 2023, Quality Insights in October 2023 and Patent Vault in February 2024; Design Search, which matches design patents from an uploaded image; and auto-generated prior art references with a calculated claim disclosure rate in Quality Insights. A is unavailable because the platform is sold as six separately purchasable applications and several of them are not model-dependent, so a buyer can hold a working product with the models subtracted. The vendor's own framing supports the reading, positioning the offering as high-quality patent data first and analytics over it second. Checked 8 September 2026.

The models are the engine of named capabilities layered on a platform that functions without them, which is the B band. Four AI capabilities are published and each is distinct: Protege, a generative assistant taking plain-language business questions to structured visual answers, in general availability since May 2026; AI-Powered Features supplying chart-level explanations and faster analysis; an AI Classifier building custom technology views; and TechDiscovery, added October 2024, allowing patent search from ordinary words and phrases. Underneath sits a platform with an independent existence and a longer history: a harmonized database of more than 90 million patent family records, manually checked ownership normalization, legal-status tracking, more than 100 attributes and measures including the Patent Asset Index, full-text and field search with Boolean, proximity and wildcard syntax, a similarity search, saved search history, and the visualization tools the product was originally known for. Strip out every model and the analytics platform remains complete. What is worth recording is the direction of travel: the vendor positions Protege as changing who can use the platform rather than what it does, describing it as replacing complicated filters with simple questions so business leaders and colleagues outside IP can reach the same data. That is an access change on a stable analytical core, which is the B band exactly. Verified 13 September 2026.

Grounding is real, documented and openable, with a defined relevance threshold, short of the A band on the limb that asks for failure modes to be named. Every output the buyer acts on is a patent document the reader can open and check: Semantic Prior Art returns up to 300 US, European, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and WIPO references, Quality Insights surfaces file wrappers and supports claim construction, and Prior Art Analytics compares references against the claims of the patent at issue and calculates the proportion of claim elements previously disclosed. The retrieval method is described in part rather than merely asserted, and the threshold is unusually specific: references are ranked by relevance and starred where semantic similarity exceeds the overall average similarity between all patents and their family members and section 102 prior art, which is a stated and non-arbitrary line rather than a vendor adjective. Figures exist and were weighed. A model-upgrade post publishes a before-and-after classification measurement on named portfolios, reporting a pairing success rate for novelty prior art rising from 77 to 86 percent with the error rate reduced by 40 percent, and marketing claims prior art search time cut by over 50 percent. Those were not counted toward A because they measure an internal classification improvement on two third-party portfolios rather than the accuracy of the product's output, and because the A band also requires the failure modes to be named and nothing on the estate names any. What the agreement says instead runs the other way and is recorded here: clause 11 disclaims liability for errors or omissions and states that the client assumes that risk. Checked 8 September 2026.

Grounding is real, documented and unusually strong, short of a measured accuracy figure, which is the B band. The grounding mechanism goes beyond citation to reproducibility, and that distinction is the finding on this row. Every Protege answer is accompanied by the full search query the assistant constructed, stated to be fully reproducible within PatentSight+, so a user can rerun the analysis and obtain the same result rather than merely being pointed at a source. Around that, the assistant explains each step of the analysis, displays the queries, contextualizes results and suggests next steps, with the vendor describing full transparency into how insights are generated so they can be understood and validated. Answers are grounded in the curated harmonized dataset and in published metrics including the Patent Asset Index methodology, so the analytical logic is inspectable as well as the data. What is absent is measurement of the assistant's own accuracy. No precision, recall or error rate is published for Protege, no test set is described, and no failure mode is named. The figures the vendor does publish measure effort rather than correctness, and are hedged and user-attributed: users reported reductions in manual analysis effort of up to 70 to 90 percent and up to three times more output. Recorded and not credited: an on-demand session is advertised on independently validated accuracy for AI-driven patent classification, but no result is published, and it is named as what would move this row. Verified 13 September 2026.

Oversight is asserted, and the assertion takes the form of assigning the risk to the customer rather than describing a control. Clause 11 of the Terms of Use states that no legal advice is intended or offered, that the vendor disclaims any and all liability related to any decision taken in reliance on the content, and that the client acknowledges it assumes the risk of possible errors or omissions. That tells a buyer where responsibility sits and nothing about how the system is supervised. No published material describes what the system does unaided, what constrains it, what review surface a professional works through, or what route an output takes back to human judgment, and no mode or setting is documented. One real control exists and is graded here rather than ignored: the starred relevance threshold on Semantic Prior Art tells a reviewer which references exceed average semantic similarity, which is a disclosed signal a professional can act on. It is a single indicator rather than a control structure. The product class softens the question without removing it, and that is said plainly: this platform retrieves, ranks and summarizes patent documents for a professional to assess rather than drafting or acting on a matter, so the D band's premise of a system that drafts, advises or acts does not describe it and D would overstate the gap. B is unavailable because no written commitment describes the models working alongside a supervising professional with real review surfaces. Checked 8 September 2026.

A written commitment that the model works alongside the user, with real and specific review surfaces, short of the full control structure, which is the B band. The commitment is stated in the vendor's own idiom rather than as a disclaimer: Protege is said to keep professionals in the driver's seat, and human oversight is one of the five RELX Responsible AI limbs the product page states govern all AI in the platform. The review surfaces behind it are concrete and are the strongest part of this row. The assistant explains every step of its analysis, displays the full queries it constructed, contextualizes the results and suggests next steps, and each answer carries the query so the user can reproduce and inspect it. The support documentation includes guidance on prompting and on validating AI-generated insights, which is instruction on how to supervise the tool rather than a statement that supervision happens. Vendor material quotes a named customer specifically on this point, valuing seeing how the assistant reasons through a problem. What the A band requires is not published. No threshold is stated at which any capability acts without review, nothing distinguishes modes with different levels of automation, no confidence signal attaches to an individual answer, and nothing describes what happens after an output is found wrong or how a user reports it. Nor is anything published about the AI Classifier or the enrichment models, whose outputs enter the dataset rather than arriving as answers a user inspects. Verified 13 September 2026.

Results are quoted with the analysis subject named but the customer never is, which is the C band's second limb. The published figures are concrete and traceable to worked examples: a model-upgrade post reports the pairing success rate for novelty prior art on an Nvidia portfolio improving from 77 to 86 percent with a 40 percent reduction in the error rate, and works through a second example on a Masimo portfolio, while marketing claims prior art search time cut by over 50 percent. Those examples name the portfolios analyzed, not customers who deployed the product, so they evidence the tool working on public patent data rather than production use by a buyer. The About page adds a scale claim of more than 440,000 patents handled over 35 years, which is leadership experience rather than deployment evidence. A retrieval limit belongs on this row and is not graded against the vendor: the product and customer pages at the vendor's own domain are robots-refused to the fetcher on both www and non-www forms, and no first-party named customer, case study or attributed testimonial was recovered through the search index across several queries. A software-directory listing names two large manufacturers as customers; that is an aggregator source, excluded outright as evidence of anything, and is recorded only so a later reader knows it was seen and refused rather than missed. If a customer page exists behind the refusal, this row is the one to revisit. Checked 8 September 2026.

Named customers with attributed substance, short of joining the names to measured figures, which is the B band. Two customers are named and both say something specific rather than offering praise. Siemens describes using the platform to track patent quality over time against competitors, accounting for acquisitions and divestitures, and notes that the quality indices reflect differences between the United States, German and Chinese markets, which is a substantive account of what the metrics do. Christopher Hauke, Head of Strategic IP and Innovation at Schott Pharma AG and Co. KGaA, is quoted by name and role on the value of seeing how Protege reasons through a problem, saying it makes the analysis transparent and gives him confidence in the results. Beyond individual customers, the AI Insider Program is described as having developed Protege in collaboration with hundreds of participating innovator organizations, with early-access feedback shaping its agentic reasoning, which evidences a structured user base rather than a handful of references. The figures are the weakness and the note states why they are not graded higher. Reductions in manual analysis effort of up to 70 to 90 percent and up to three times more output are attributed to users rather than measured by the vendor, are expressed as ranges with an upper bound, and carry no method, baseline or sample. They are recorded as reported and are not treated as measurement. No figure is joined to either named customer. Verified 13 September 2026.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms, and the one confidentiality article in the agreement does not cover the customer's work. Section 9 of the Terms of Use binds both parties to hold confidential the contents, terms and all information related to the Agreement, for ten years after termination. That protects the deal, not the client's matter material. Nothing in the Terms commits InQuartik to hold in confidence the searches a client runs, the portfolios it assembles, the notes it takes or the reports it generates. What is published elsewhere is a security posture rather than a confidentiality commitment: ISO 27001 certification with a named scope, and a statement of commitment to protecting information disclosure, both of which are graded on Security Certifications where they answer the question directly. Two clauses run the other way and belong on this row for a buyer whose search strategy is itself privileged work product. Clause 3.2 records that the vendor collects information on the client's searches and browsing history, the notes the client made and other platform activity; clause 3.11 adds the terms, phrases and choices made while searching; and clause 3.4 reserves the right to analyze and compile statistics from information collected in order to improve existing services and develop new services. Privilege and work product are addressed nowhere, which forecloses A independently. No position is stated on what any model provider may retain, none being named. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments across most limbs, defeated on two, which is the B band. The commitments are specific and several are unusual. Training is excluded in express terms on the product page: queries and usage data are never used to train AI models, repeated as a statement that customer data is never used to train AI models. Data is stated not to be shared outside the customer's organization. And a cross-product commitment is published that this corpus has not seen elsewhere: customer data entered into Protege is not shared with other LexisNexis products unless explicitly communicated and authorized, which matters because the vendor operates seven adjacent IP products a buyer might otherwise assume share a data layer. Retention is addressed both as policy and as a control, the vendor citing robust data retention and deletion policies while the platform lets a user disable automatic saving of search queries and compare, combine, export or delete saved queries. Personal data is processed under a published Privacy Policy and Data Processing Addendum, and the General Terms provide for return of Subscriber Files on request within sixty days of termination. Two A limbs fail. Privilege and work product are not addressed by name, which forecloses A on its own. And no model provider is identified, so nothing states what any third party sees of a query, which on a tool that ingests strategic questions about unannounced acquisitions and licensing positions is the gap that matters. Verified 13 September 2026.

A real position on advice versus tooling is published, and it sits in the customer agreement rather than in a website footer, which is what separates this from the C band's boilerplate-in-the-terms pattern. Clause 11 of the Terms of Use states in terms that no legal advice is intended or offered by InQuartik in making any of the content available, and that the vendor disclaims all liability related to any decision taken by any party in reliance upon the content. The surrounding sentence adds that the client assumes the risk of possible errors or omissions, so the allocation is explicit rather than implied. The audience is not left ambiguous, which removes the other route to C: the vendor addresses IP professionals, attorneys, patent counsel, brokers and analysts by name, and clause 5.5 contemplates institutional subscriptions for law firms, corporations and government entities, so this is a professional tool sold to professionals rather than a consumer-facing product. Two A limbs fail. Nothing addresses how the product supports a practitioner's competence or supervision duties, and no jurisdiction limit is named anywhere despite a database spanning six patent jurisdictions and a product whose validity analysis is US-specific. Checked 8 September 2026.

A contractual scope limit sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in decision terms and widens the audience, which is the C band. The contractual limit is real: the General Terms grant a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right to access and use the online services and materials for research purposes, which frames the product as research rather than advice, and the terms address legal professionals separately. Against that, the marketing is written in the language of determinations rather than of information: decision-ready insights, high-value strategic decisions, and worked examples that are squarely professional questions, including identifying top acquisition targets in a sector and finding potential licensing partners for a technology. The audience is deliberately widened rather than left ambiguous, which is what places this in the C band rather than above it. The vendor states the point openly, positioning Protege as expanding access to patent data to key players in other parts of the organization and as letting business leaders reach insights without complex filters. So non-lawyers are an intended audience for output that feeds licensing, acquisition and portfolio decisions. Nothing published addresses what a business user should not do with a Protege answer, or where a patent attorney's judgment must intervene. Recorded and not credited because it engages the audience rather than the line: the Responsible AI page observes that many users of IP analytics are lawyers and reasons from that, which is graded on the bar guidance signal. Verified 13 September 2026.

No governance position is published for a system whose output informs patent validity and freedom-to-operate decisions. Nothing identifies who inside the vendor is accountable for the models, no pre-release testing regime is described as governance, no policy or principles statement exists, no certification such as ISO 42001 is claimed, and nothing addresses uneven output across jurisdictions, technology fields, filing languages or portfolio sizes, which is where bias would actually bite on a patent analytics product. The C band was tested and does not fit, because C describes responsible AI principles published without a mechanism and no principles are published at all. One item was considered and rejected under the no-double-spend rule. A model-upgrade post does publish a before-and-after evaluation of classification performance on two named portfolios, which is genuine measurement disclosure; it is spent on Citation Accuracy, where it answers the question the band asks, and it is not a governance framework, an accountability structure or a testing regime that a buyer could audit. The ISO 27001 certification covers information security management and is spent on Security Certifications. The grade records what is locatable on this axis as of the date rather than asserting the vendor has no internal practice. Checked 8 September 2026.

A published governance framework, externally defined and connected to this product by scope, short of testing results and a named owner, which is the B band and the strongest governance position in this lane. The framework is the RELX Responsible AI Principles, and what distinguishes this record from its neighbors is that the connector required by R16 is present and explicit rather than assumed: the product's own AI page states that all AI in PatentSight+ is governed by those principles, and the TechDiscovery release states the module was developed in accordance with them. The five limbs are enumerated on the product surface rather than referenced by title, covering real-world impact, minimizing bias, transparency in how insights are generated, human oversight, and governance with strong privacy and security practices. A Responsible AI page sits on the IP estate itself and argues the case for self-regulation rather than merely asserting compliance. Structured feedback is real: the AI Insider Program gives participating organizations early access, focus groups and feedback channels, which is a mechanism for surfacing problems before general release. What the A band asks for is missing. No individual, committee or function is named as accountable for model behavior on this product. No pre-release testing regime is described. And although bias minimization is named as a principle and an on-demand session advertises independently validated classification accuracy, no evaluation result is published, so a buyer can read the commitment and not the evidence. Verified 13 September 2026.

A privacy policy and a set of personal-data rights cover the product without addressing what happens to the work itself after processing. What is published and real: clause 3.7 gives the client the right to request export, update, correction or deletion of personal information and to require the vendor to stop collecting, processing and using it, with a commitment to comply in a timely manner; clause 3.8 commits to systematic deletion of identity documents once identity is confirmed; clause 3.5 addresses onward transfer to third-party processors with a requirement that they comply with data protection regulation; and clause 3.6 acknowledges cross-border transfer with security safeguards. Access control and infrastructure protection sit inside the ISO 27001 scope. What is absent is the substance this axis asks about for a product that ingests professional work. No retention period is stated anywhere for searches, notes, projects or generated reports, and clause 3.1 states instead that the vendor may at all times receive and store such information. Nothing describes what happens to a client's Patent Vault projects on termination; clause 9.4 addresses return or destruction of confidential information, which section 9 defines as the agreement's own terms. No subprocessor is named, clause 3.5 referring only to trusted third-party processors and service providers. No incident or breach notification practice was located on any surface. B is unavailable because two of the elements it names, a subprocessor list and a stated incident practice, are both missing rather than one. Checked 8 September 2026.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set, which is the B band, and the coverage here is broader than most records reach. Training exclusion is express and repeated. Encryption is stated for data at rest and in transit, with privacy-by-design named as a development practice. Audit practice is specific rather than asserted: LexisNexis cloud environments, products and security programs are stated to be audited annually, with the audit scope enumerated as encryption, backup, disaster recovery, access controls, data destruction, breach prevention and confidentiality safeguards. Incident practice is published and tiered, with policies and procedures covering technical, administrative, business and executive escalation. Subprocessors are handled properly and this is the strongest limb: the Data Processing Addendum incorporated into the terms points to a maintained public subprocessor list, commits to updating it at least fourteen days before any change takes effect, and gives the customer a right to object within fourteen days with reasons. Retention and deletion policies are stated, and the platform gives the user direct control over saved search queries. Two things hold it off A. No retention period is stated anywhere, only that policies exist. And access control at product level is thin: single sign-on across LexisNexis applications is described as being introduced rather than available, and no role or permission model is published. Verified 13 September 2026.

Liability is addressed only through disclaimer, and the indemnity runs one way. Clause 11 disclaims liability for errors or omissions throughout the services, states that the client assumes that risk as a subscriber, and disclaims all liability related to any decision taken by any party in reliance upon the content; it further disclaims liability for interruptions and third-party infrastructure failures. Clause 15 is the only indemnification article and it obliges the client to indemnify, defend and hold harmless InQuartik across five heads including breach, third-party IP claims arising from client submissions, and the client's activities in connection with the database and reports. There is no vendor indemnity of any kind. The warranties at clause 10.1 are corporate rather than performance warranties: that the services contain no libelous matter, that the vendor operates lawfully and holds necessary permits, and that it has capacity to contract. Nothing warrants the accuracy, completeness or fitness of the analysis. No insurance is referenced. One retrieval limit belongs on this row and is not graded against the vendor: section 12 is headed Limitation of Liability, Cap and Force Majeure and the page runs from that heading directly to clause 12.4, a force-majeure notice provision, so the limitation and cap text at 12.1 to 12.3 did not render and was not read. The grade rests on what is published rather than on the missing clauses. D was tested and does not fit, because the allocation of loss is stated rather than absent; it is simply stated against the buyer. Checked 8 September 2026.

A published agreement with a real indemnity, and AI output left to the user to verify. The LexisNexis General Terms and Conditions (effective 5 June 2026), which the product links through the LexisNexis terms hub, have LexisNexis defend and indemnify the subscriber against third-party patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret infringement claims arising from use of the service, with that indemnity excluded from the twelve-month liability cap. The AI Services clause says AI output may not be accurate and users must verify it, so nothing stands behind a wrong AI insight. The terms also give 30 days to cure a change that materially degrades the service, failing which the subscriber may terminate, and return of subscriber files on request within 60 days of termination. Verified 23 September 2026.

No integration into practice systems was located, and the vendor's own positioning is that none is needed. The bundle FAQ states that the plans allow a team to work on the Patentcloud platform without needing to introduce additional third-party tools, which is a claim of self-sufficiency rather than of interoperability. No docketing system, document management system, IP management platform or patent office filing interface is named anywhere as a connection, no API is documented or referenced, and no integrations page was recovered. What does exist is export and sharing inside the platform's own boundary: PatentMatrix dashboards and Due Diligence and Quality Insights reports can be shared with colleagues and partners, and the KEEP function saves findings into a Patent Vault project for team members. Those move work between the vendor's own applications and between its own users, not into the systems a firm already runs. A retrieval limit is recorded and did not drive the grade: the product pages are robots-refused to the fetcher, so an integrations page could exist behind the refusal. The grade rests on located material rather than on the refusal, because the vendor's published account of its bundles positively asserts that third-party tools are unnecessary, which is affirmative evidence rather than silence. Checked 8 September 2026.

Integration is claimed and partly named, without a documented catalog or configuration detail, which is the C band. What is established sits mostly inside the vendor's own family. Single sign-on across LexisNexis applications is described as an enhanced login experience allowing users to move between LexisNexis products without re-authenticating, which is a real interoperability step, though the vendor describes it as being released over a period rather than as available, so under ground rules section 2 it is recorded and not credited as shipped. Data can leave the platform: search queries and results can be exported, and a separate product, IP DataDirect, exists as a data feed, with an older factsheet referencing a developers portal and proof-of-concept access. TechDiscovery and the AI Classifier operate as modules within the same platform rather than as integrations. What the higher bands require was not established. No connector catalog is published, no external system is named as supported, no API documentation for this product was reached, and nothing describes the direction of flow or the configuration required for any connection. The gap has practical weight for the buyer: a corporate IP department typically runs a docketing or IP management system alongside its analytics, and nothing published states whether portfolio data can move between them. Verified 13 September 2026.

The deployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, which is the B band. Published: the platform runs on a hybrid cloud infrastructure, and the locations are named rather than left as a cloud gesture, comprising Amazon Web Services data centers in Oregon and Tokyo together with Taiwan Mobile data centers in Taipei. The vendor states the AWS facilities are themselves certified to ISO 27001, PCI DSS Service Provider Level 1 and SOC 2, and that the Taipei facilities carry Tier III certification in design, facility and operations. Physical and environmental security sits inside the ISO 27001 scope. Three named locations across two continents is more residency detail than most records in this lane publish. Three limbs are missing and each matters to a buyer with client obligations. No tenancy model is stated anywhere, so whether the deployment is single or multi-tenant and how customer separation is achieved cannot be established. Processing location is not distinguished from storage location, so a buyer cannot tell which of the three sites analysis runs in. And no region choice is offered or described, the geography being disclosed as the vendor's architecture rather than as a customer election, with clause 3.6 confirming that information collected in one jurisdiction may be transferred to servers in another under unspecified safeguards. Checked 8 September 2026.

Cloud delivery is evident and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated, which is the C band with both co-equal limbs absent. The delivery model is clear: a browser-based subscription platform accessed through LexisNexis online services, governed by General Terms that define the arrangement as access to online services rather than as licensed installed software. Hosting is described only by character, the vendor stating that it partners with trusted, enterprise-grade cloud providers and continuously monitors and improves its infrastructure. That is a statement about the class of provider rather than an identification of one, and it carries no location. Nothing published names a data center region, a country of processing, or an option to elect one, which is a real gap for a platform sold across Europe and Asia to customers with data residency obligations, and it sits oddly beside the detailed data protection material the same estate publishes. Tenancy is equally unaddressed: nothing states whether a customer's saved searches, exports and Protege conversation history sit in a shared or isolated environment, and no single-tenant or private deployment option is offered or refused. Recorded and expressly not credited under ground rules section 3: the annual audit scope includes backup and disaster recovery, which is resilience practice rather than a residency statement, and the cloud providers' own certifications are infrastructure. Verified 13 September 2026.

Independent attestation with a named scope, reachable without a sales call, on a dedicated trust surface. The vendor publishes a Trust and Security page stating that InQuartik is ISO 27001 certified and setting out the scope of the certification with unusual specificity: all six Patentcloud applications enumerated individually, Quality Insights, Due Diligence, SEP OmniLytics, Patent Search, Design Search and Patent Vault, together with internal systems spanning development, maintenance, physical security, and the management of application systems, data protection systems and network communications. The certificate itself is offered for direct download rather than through an account executive or an NDA gate, which is the self-serve tier and reaches the top band. The page also names the hosting estate and the certifications held by those facilities. Two limits are named because they are real and because the grade should be read with them. The certificate was not opened: the trust page path is robots-refused to the fetcher on both URL forms and its body was recovered through the search index, so the auditor and the certificate's validity dates are not established, and the most recent certification announcement located is a second-year renewal rather than a current-year confirmation. Grading down on that basis would convert a fetcher constraint into a finding against the vendor, which rule 6.6 forbids, so the grade records what the vendor's own text establishes and this note carries what it does not. No SOC 2 report of the vendor's own is claimed; the SOC 2 reference belongs to AWS and is infrastructure. Checked 8 September 2026.

Certification is referred to without a named standard held for this product, and the one standard that is named is promised rather than held, which is the C band. The critical sentence is in the product support documentation and is recorded verbatim in effect: Protege in PatentSight+ follows the same enterprise security framework used across LexisNexis products and will be ISO 27001 certified. That is future tense, and under ground rules section 2 future tense is not evidence of a shipped capability, so it is expressly not credited. Read plainly it says the opposite of what a skimming buyer would take from it: as of this verification the product is not certified on its own account. What else exists is real but unnamed. The vendor states that it undergoes regular third-party audits to maintain industry-leading certifications without identifying any of them, and that LexisNexis cloud environments, products and security programs are audited annually, with the audit scope enumerated in useful detail across encryption, backup, disaster recovery, access controls, data destruction, breach prevention and confidentiality safeguards. So audit practice is described and its coverage is specific, while the resulting attestations are not named, dated, scoped or obtainable. No trust center carrying reports was located for this product. The distance to a higher grade is small and entirely within the vendor's control: naming the certification actually held, its scope and its period would move this row immediately. Verified 13 September 2026.

The vendor refers to its models as proprietary and identifies nothing underneath them, which is the C band exactly. Semantic Prior Art is described as powered by Patentcloud's machine learning technology, which is a claim of ownership rather than an identification; the Patent Summary feature is described as generative AI without naming a model, a provider or an architecture; and a model upgrade is discussed in terms of classification performance without saying what was upgraded. No foundation model is named anywhere, no model provider is named, and nothing states whether the generative component is built in-house or supplied by a third party, which is the single question a buyer would ask of a feature that sends patent text to a model. The Terms of Use are silent on the point across their whole length. Amazon Web Services and Taiwan Mobile are named, and both are spent on infrastructure: test 1 naming a cloud host says where a model runs rather than whose model it is, and the same fact cannot also answer this axis. D was tested and does not fit, because the vendor does disclose that machine learning and generative AI sit behind named features and characterizes the machine learning as its own; what it withholds is everything below that. Change notification is not reached, nothing being named that a change could be notified about. Checked 8 September 2026.

The vendor refers to purpose-built AI without identifying what sits underneath, which is the C band. The references are confident and comparative but never specific. Protege is described as purpose-built for patent intelligence, as delivering insights beyond what general large language models and AI-powered IP workflow tools can provide, and as having agentic reasoning refined through early-access feedback. TechDiscovery, the AI Classifier and the enrichment models are each described by function. Not one of them is attributed to a model, a version, an architecture or a provider. The comparison against general large language models implies the assistant is something other than a wrapper without saying what it is, and nothing distinguishes models built in-house from models licensed and fine-tuned. Nothing states where inference runs, what any provider retains of a query, or whether a customer would be told if the underlying model changed. The contrast with the same vendor's data disclosure is the point worth recording: the corpus behind the platform is described in exhaustive detail, down to 90 million patent families, ownership normalization and more than 100 named attributes, while the models reading it are described only by purpose. Recorded and expressly not credited under ground rules section 3: the reference to trusted, enterprise-grade cloud providers names a class of infrastructure supplier, not a model supplier, and no provider is identified in any case. Verified 13 September 2026.

The unit and the structure are published in real depth and the figures did not resolve, which is the B band's second limb. Published: five named bundle plans, Premium, Patent Due Diligence, Patent Portfolio Analysis, Patent Litigation and Freedom to Operate, each built around a stated patent scenario and each with a feature comparison table setting out precisely what it includes and excludes; separate standalone pricing pages for the individual products; the unit of charge stated as one account per plan with additional seats available on request; quantified entitlements including a 100,000-patent storage limit, up to 1,000 customizable folders and up to twenty collaborators; a stated bundle discount of up to 79 percent against standalone subscription; monthly and annual billing cycles with automatic credit card billing at the start of each cycle; accepted payment methods; a published switch-and-cancel policy operating from the next billing cycle; and free trials including seven-day trials and two free validity analysis reports. Custom bundles and additional seats are withheld to a sales conversation, which is the enterprise-tier withholding the band contemplates. Two things are named rather than glossed. The plan figures render client-side and returned empty cells on fetch, so no rate was established first-party, and that is a retrieval limit rather than a finding that no figure is published. And a software-directory listing publishes four annual figures; it is an aggregator, excluded as evidence, nothing here is graded on it, and it is named only so a later reader knows it was seen and refused. Checked 8 September 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, which is the D band. The page inventory was taken across the product estate, the AI pages, the Responsible AI page, the resources and news sections, the support and product support centers and the LexisNexis legal and terms estate. There is no pricing page for this product and no figure, band or unit appears anywhere on the vendor's own surfaces. The commercial routes published are a demonstration request and a contact form. What the terms confirm is that pricing exists as a negotiated contractual document rather than a public one: the Subscription Agreement is defined as the General Terms plus Supplemental Terms plus the applicable rates set forth in the Price Schedule, and the terms distinguish transactional pricing plans from fixed-price and fixed-term arrangements without publishing either. So a buyer can establish that two different charging shapes exist and nothing about what either costs, which is not published pricing structure for this product within the meaning of R10. Under R10's closing discipline no structure means no row, so no VendorPricing row is written. Recorded and expressly not credited: third-party listings describe customizable pricing available by quote and subscription-based term pricing, which corroborates the absence rather than establishing any structure. Verified 13 September 2026.

Segment and practice coverage is described with real substance, with the boundaries left open. The buyer segments are named individually rather than gestured at: IP professionals, attorneys, dealers, brokers, scientists, engineers, financiers and designers, and clause 5.5 of the Terms contemplates institutional subscriptions for law firms, corporations and business, charitable or government entities. Practice coverage is unusually concrete because the five bundle plans are themselves named practice scenarios, each mapped to the work it supports: due diligence before a buying or licensing decision, portfolio analysis at any scale, litigation response where the task is finding weaknesses in the patent at issue, freedom to operate where the task is clearing products in target markets, and an all-scenario enterprise plan. Standard-essential patent work is served by a dedicated application, with 5G and 6G claim charting and FRAND issues named specifically, and design patent clearance by another. Jurisdictional coverage is stated where it is testable, with US, European, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and WIPO documents named as the semantic prior art scope. A is unavailable because the limits are not stated: nothing says which jurisdictions are outside coverage, and the validity and file wrapper analysis in Quality Insights is described against US patents without a statement of what is unavailable elsewhere. Checked 8 September 2026.

Coverage is described with real substance across data, buyers and use cases, with the boundaries left open, which is the B band. Data coverage is quantified: more than 90 million patent family records, harmonized and enriched with manually checked ownership normalization, legal-status tracking and more than 100 attributes and measures. Buyer coverage is named across an unusually wide range, the vendor addressing corporations, law firms, regulators and academic users, and stating expressly that the assistant is intended to widen access from IP specialists to business leaders and colleagues elsewhere in the organization. Use cases are enumerated concretely rather than abstractly, the vendor publishing worked example questions covering acquisition targets in a named sector, the evolution of a named technology landscape, licensing partner identification and portfolio fee reduction, alongside benchmarking, due diligence, competitive analysis, litigation risk and non-practising entity identification. Jurisdictional reach is evidenced through a named customer describing quality indices that account for differences between the United States, German and Chinese markets. What is left open is the limit in every direction. No technology area is named as better or worse covered, no jurisdiction is stated as out of scope, nothing describes what the AI Classifier handles poorly, and nothing distinguishes what this platform covers from the adjacent LexisNexis IP products a buyer might otherwise assume are included. Verified 13 September 2026.