Alt Legal is trademark docketing software for IP practices. It connects to more than 180 intellectual property offices, pulls matter data from official filings, calculates due dates, and keeps a global portfolio in sync without manual entry. It also sells trademark protection tools, including a Section 2(d) watch that flags conflicting applications before publication and an automated global application match service.
The Goods and Services Composer combines the USPTO ID Manual with two million live registered marks and shows filing fees by class as a description is built. The AI Filtering Assistant turns a typed request, such as a jurisdiction and date range, into report filters, and administrators can switch it off. Alt Legal Assist is a separate service in which the company's own IP paralegals manage a customer's docket. Pricing is based on the number of docketed matters, starts at $60 a month, and includes unlimited users, data migration, training and support.
Alt Legal, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with offices in New York and London, and it acquired the WebTMS portfolio management product in April 2026.
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Vendors in the same categories as Alt Legal whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
One shipped feature uses machine learning: the AI Filtering Assistant, a natural language query tool that populates report filters from a typed request such as patent filings in the EU from the last 90 days. The other features Alt Legal calls intelligent claim no model. The Goods and Services Composer is described as an intelligent drafting tool, but its published mechanism is search and reuse over the USPTO ID Manual and two million registered marks, with snippet libraries, deduplication and fee calculation.
Automated docketing, the core of the product, is rule driven date calculation against official IP office data. Alt Legal states plainly on the AI page that it does not train or host its own AI models, and the docketing platform's value stands entirely without the assistant.
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
The Composer page promises better ID Manual compliance and accuracy, and the AI page says queries and AI responses are logged to monitor quality and reliability, but no accuracy figure, test set, error rate or failure mode is published. The product retrieves no primary law and generates no citations, so grounding to authority does not arise. The relevant failure is a misread filter that returns an incomplete docket report. The assistant fills in visible filters in the report the user already has open rather than returning an opaque answer.
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The AI feature runs only when someone types a query, and it changes filters rather than acting on a matter. The one published control is administrative: the AI page states that the assistant can be enabled or disabled according to a customer's IT and security preferences. Nothing states what a user should check before relying on the output, and no review point is described. The nearest thing is a term in the customer agreement placing responsibility for reviewing the accuracy of all output on the customer and its authorized users, which allocates the duty without describing a mechanism for discharging it.
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
The Nolte Lackenbach Siegel study names the firm, its managing partner Renee Duff and its trademark paralegal Kim Hassiak, and describes a portfolio of nearly 7,000 active USPTO matters and nearly 6,000 international matters at a firm it identifies as a top ten US trademark filer. It also describes the merger and the failure of a legacy system that drove the migration, and the specific features the team uses. Further named practitioners appear across the site with firms and titles, including Rosie Burbidge at gunnercooke and Hillary Schroeder at Name Game IP, against a portfolio claim of 2,000 law firms and legal departments.
No study provides a before and after figure: the numbers describe portfolio scale rather than what changed, no study carries a publication date, and none of the evidence is attributed to the AI feature.
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Alt Legal's AI page says only the query, system instructions and structured filtering data are sent to the model, and that customer records and portfolio data stay within Alt Legal's infrastructure. It adds that the AI provider stores no prompts or responses and that logged operational data never trains models. A contractual confidentiality regime sits behind it. Section 3.1 of the terms defines the customer's confidential information to include information about legal or business affairs, clients and other non public data.
Privilege and work product are not addressed, and the separate Alt Legal Assist agreement says expressly that Alt Legal cannot give an opinion on privilege. Nothing addresses separation between matters or users inside a firm.
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Section 2.3 of the terms says Alt Legal does not act as a law firm or lawyer or as a substitute for a lawyer's advice, and that nothing about the platform is intended to create an attorney client relationship. The Alt Legal Assist agreement repeats this for the paralegal service and adds that Alt Legal cannot give an opinion on privilege or confidentiality. Nothing engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or state bar guidance, and nothing addresses a supervising lawyer's competence and supervision duties over the software or the outsourced paralegals. No jurisdiction limit is stated for a product used across more than 180 IP offices.
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No responsible AI statement, governance framework, named owner for AI decisions, testing regime before release, or anything on bias or uneven output is published. The AI page's Security and AI Infrastructure section covers data handling and access control, a different subject. Alt Legal says it does not train or host models, which partly explains the absence since it makes no model level decisions. Nothing says what is tested before releasing a feature that reads across a firm's whole docket.
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Alt Legal's GDPR page states TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, encryption at rest described as SHA 256 with 2048 bit keys, backups at least daily, annual staff privacy training, completed data mapping and privacy impact assessments, and documented incident response procedures. It describes a deletion route once processing is complete and retention duties are met, and acknowledges Alt Legal's role as a data processor for GDPR customers.
For the AI feature, access to logged queries and responses is limited to authorized engineering and security staff. No subprocessor list is published; it is available only by emailing the team. No retention period is stated, and no breach notification commitment is published. The GDPR page was last modified in May 2022.
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Section 5 of the terms caps Alt Legal's liability at the fees paid in the six months before the claim arose, and excludes special, indirect, incidental, punitive and consequential damages along with lost profits and attorneys' fees. The platform is supplied as is with warranties disclaimed, and the customer and its users are solely responsible for checking the accuracy of everything they enter and any output the platform generates.
Users also waive rights of setoff and counterclaim other than compulsory ones. No indemnity to the customer, warranty on output or insurance position is published.
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
TEAS integration for USPTO filing heads the list on Alt Legal's pricing page, with calendar sync for deadlines, docket access for clients and third parties, intake forms and data from more than 180 IP offices. The Nolte case study describes a link to Smartsheet that Alt Legal's support team helped build at no extra fee. No integrations directory, API reference or developer documentation is published, and no connection to a document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments is named.
The IP office connections supply the product's data rather than connecting it to the systems where a firm's other work lives.
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
All AI processing takes place in a private US based cloud environment, Alt Legal's AI page says, and customer records and portfolio data do not leave the company's controlled infrastructure. The privacy policy adds that personal data may be transferred to and stored outside the EEA, including in the United States, and the GDPR page identifies Alt Legal, Inc. as a Delaware corporation based in the US. No tenancy model is described, no region options are offered, and no EU or UK hosting option is mentioned despite a London office and European customers.
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
No independent security attestation is published. There is no trust portal, badge, named auditor or report request route, and no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 report naming Alt Legal is published. The GDPR page describes security practices in specific terms, including transport security, encryption, backup frequency and incident response, but a vendor's description of its controls is not an independent attestation.
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
Alt Legal's AI page says it uses a secure enterprise AI platform for the assistant, does not train or host its own models, and processes in a private US based cloud. It says the AI provider does not store prompts or responses and does not use customer data for training, advertising or profiling. Every one of those facts describes the relationship, not the counterparty. No model, model family, vendor or version is identified, and no commitment to notify customers if the provider changes is published. A firm asked by a client which model sees its docket queries cannot answer from published material.
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Four tiers have prices against a stated unit of total docketed matters: up to 50 matters at $60 a month, up to 100 at $100, up to 200 at $195 and up to 400 at $295. The optional Trademark Protection module is priced alongside at $30, $40, $60 and $95. The page's FAQ defines a docketed matter as a distinct trademark, patent or opposition filing. Implementation is answered directly: no setup fee, free bulk data migration done in about a week, and unlimited support and training, with unlimited users on every tier.
Above 400 matters the page invites contact, so the larger portfolios in the vendor's own case studies, one with nearly 13,000 live matters, are unpriced. The page's meta description still advertises a $50 starting price against a table that shows $60.
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Trademark practice is what Alt Legal is built for. The Nolte case study describes that firm keeping patents on a separate patent system while trademarks run on Alt Legal, calling it a best in class split docket, and the CEO has published an article arguing for that approach. Supported matter types also include TTAB oppositions and cancellations, copyrights, disputes, licenses, patents, state registrations and custom types, across more than 180 jurisdictions.
Buyers range from solo practitioners through boutique firms to in house departments, with a separate track for law schools and students. Practice area boundaries are stated, but segment boundaries are not: no firm size floor or ceiling is given, and government use is not addressed.
The public pages on file for Alt Legal, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention
Read Aug 31, 2026
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Aug 31, 2026
Published tiers are priced on total docketed matters, defined by the vendor as a distinct trademark, patent or opposition filing. Docketing: up to 50 matters $60 per month, up to 100 $100, up to 200 $195, up to 400 $295. The optional Trademark Protection module adds $30, $40, $60 and $95 per month at the same tiers. $60 is a floor rather than a rate, being the lowest published tier. Unlimited users are included at every tier, and the page states there is no setup fee, no charge for bulk data migration, and no charge for support or training.
Portfolios above 400 matters are unpriced and directed to sales. The page's meta description still advertises a $50 starting price against a table reading $60.
Alt Legal released a native add in for Microsoft Outlook, available to all users, that uploads emails and their attachments directly to matters in the Alt Legal IP docket without leaving the inbox. Users search and select the target matter from Outlook, multifile emails are filed as a complete set, and emails are stored alongside their original attachments.
A signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The AI Filtering Assistant page makes the commitment twice, once for the external provider in the quoted line and once for Alt Legal itself, stating that logged operational data is never used to train AI models. It also limits what reaches the model at all, saying only the query, system instructions and structured filtering data are sent while customer records and portfolio data stay inside Alt Legal's infrastructure.
No matching prohibition in the customer agreement has been found, so the commitment sits on a product page rather than in a contract.
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is split between the two parties and only one half is answered. The provider stores nothing, per the quoted line. Alt Legal itself does retain material, stating that it logs limited operational data such as queries, AI responses and performance metrics to monitor quality, reliability and security, with access restricted to authorized engineering and security personnel. No period is stated for those logs, no customer control over the window is described, and no zero retention option is offered.
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Neither the AI Filtering Assistant nor the wider docketing product, as described on the home, Composer, pricing and GDPR pages and in the Nolte case study, offers ethical walls or segregation at matter level, and nothing shows whether the assistant respects access restrictions for each user when it queries across a firm's docket. The assistant is described as searching across all of a user's matters, and the only access control published is an administrative switch that enables or disables the feature for the organization as a whole.
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The quoted commitment comes from the Alt Legal Assist terms, which govern the paralegal service rather than the docketing platform. On receiving a judicial or government order to disclose the other party's confidential information, the receiving party must give notice and a fair chance to contest the order, where the law allows. No transparency report is published.
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
The product does not retrieve case law or statutes, so its source material is registry data, and that is named specifically: the full USPTO ID Manual and about two million live registered marks in the Goods and Services Composer, and filing data from more than 180 IP offices for docketing. The Composer is said to stay in sync with current USPTO acceptable language across all 45 NICE classes. No license, rights basis or public domain statement is given for any of it, and the arrangements for offices outside the US are not described.
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
No citator applies, because the product does not return legal authority whose subsequent history could be checked. The nearest analog is status tracking rather than treatment: docketing pulls live status changes from IP office records, so a registration's current standing is maintained automatically, but that is registry currency rather than a good law signal.
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
A query the AI Filtering Assistant cannot parse or cannot satisfy has no described handling, whether on the assistant's own page, the home page or the pricing feature list. No abstention path, confidence indicator or error behavior is published. The assistant populates visible filters in the report rather than returning a bare answer, which gives the user something to check, but Alt Legal does not describe this as an uncertainty mechanism.
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin at HEC Paris, along with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Alt Legal, which is both the product and company name. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The AI feature builds report filters over a firm's own docket and generates no citations to authority.
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No engagement with ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar guidance on generative AI appears on the home page, the AI page, the events and CLE pages or the blog index. Alt Legal publishes a substantial professional education program, including accredited CLE, a webinar series on trademark law topics and a paralegal course and community, but none of that material addresses the ethics obligations attaching to a lawyer's use of AI.
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.
Billing and client disclosure of AI assisted work get no guidance from Alt Legal, across its AI page, pricing page, Nolte case study and blog. Alt Legal does discuss fees elsewhere, describing custom tags used to distinguish which clients are billed for which tasks and noting that clients are not billed for checking the docket themselves, but that is client billing administration rather than the fee treatment of AI assisted work. No record of what the assistant did on a given matter is described.
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.
The GDPR page states that a customer wanting details of Alt Legal's subprocessors or a copy of its data protection agreement can obtain them by emailing the team, calling, or using live chat, and says the vendor regularly reviews its vendor agreements and data protection agreements. Both documents therefore exist and neither is published: they sit behind a human request rather than a self serve portal or download. A firm could not assemble a client facing AI disclosure from public material either, since the model provider behind the AI feature is not named anywhere.
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Reporting in the product, as the assistant page, pricing feature list and home page describe it, produces no AI use disclosure or verification certification. No export for each document or matter covering which queries were run, what the assistant returned or who reviewed it is described. The obligation is a poor fit for this product, which builds docket reports rather than court filings.
Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.