&
&AI
&AI is an AI workspace for patent litigation built by AndAI, Inc., based in New York. Litigators and in-house patent teams use it to search prior art across more than 60 million patent publications, non-patent literature and product materials including manuals, standards and video, to build invalidity and evidence-of-use claim charts, to analyse positions under sections 101, 102, 103 and 112, and to draft contentions, expert reports and pitch materials.
The platform assembles a patent's family, prosecution history and prior cases automatically, and an AI assistant called Andy works across these tools. In claim charts, every proposed citation points to a specific passage, figure or timestamp and must be approved by the user before it appears in an export, and exported charts contain quoted evidence rather than generated text. &AI serves law firms from the Am Law 100 to IP boutiques, on both plaintiff and defence sides, and corporate in-house teams.
It publishes its pricing: pay-as-you-go credits at $0.40 each, a Pro plan at $625 per user per month with 2,500 credits, and custom Enterprise plans offering single-tenant or self-hosted model deployment, with a seven-day free trial.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
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.
The models are the product, which is the A band. Every capability the vendor sells is model work: agentic prior art search across patents, non-patent 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.
The pricing page says credits pay for the AI and compute-intensive actions, which is every action a customer buys. Take the models away and what is left is a document store and an export formatter. Verified 18 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
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.
Grounding is real and documented to the passage, with one internal measurement short of a published evaluation, which is the B band. 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, and the Charts post says each proposed piece of evidence carries a short relevance rationale. The same post reports that in an internal review of exported charts about 83 per cent of the evidence in the final export was present in the first pass, for both invalidity and evidence-of-use charts.
That is a real figure, but the test set is described only as exported charts, the measure is closer to recall than to accuracy, no failure mode is named, and 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. Verified 18 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
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.
A named mode carries a categorical constraint and a mandatory review gate, which meets the A band on the categorical-constraint reading. 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. That tells a buyer before purchase what the output of that mode can and cannot contain, and puts a human decision at a defined point before anything leaves the platform.
The product separates modes clearly (search, charts, drafts, tables, pitch and the Andy assistant), and the vendor's own statement of purpose is that the AI handles volume while lawyers make the judgements. The constraint is specific to Charts: drafts and Andy produce generated text under a general expectation of review with no equivalent gate, which is recorded so the grade is read correctly. Verified 18 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
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.
Figures are published without a named customer, which is the B band. The vendor's February 2025 release says early customers at large law firms used the platform to build thousands of claim charts and reported average time savings of 70 to 90 per cent, and 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 evidences production use at volume.
No customer is named anywhere; the named practitioners on the home page are an advisory board, not customers, and are not counted here. Verified 18 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
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.
The confidentiality commitments live in marketing while the published agreement grants the opposite, which places this at C and the gap is the finding. 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 non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable and transferable licence to reproduce, modify, prepare derivative works of and otherwise use content users upload, and 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. Verified 18 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
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.
A general output disclaimer sits in the terms while the audience extends beyond lawyers, which is the C band. The terms state that AI sometimes produces incorrect or inapplicable outcomes and that the user is solely responsible for the accuracy and use of output, and self-serve accounts are limited to verified patent practitioners and other approved users. Those approved users expressly include investment funds and universities, and the product is marketed for trial-ready analysis and 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. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: 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 governance position published. Searched the home, security, pricing, terms and privacy pages, the product pages and the blog index on 18 September 2026. No responsible AI policy, testing regime, accountable owner or discussion of uneven output was located. The vendor's post on its name sets out a view that AI handles volume and lawyers handle judgement, and the home page lists an advisory board of patent litigators; neither is a governance framework for model behaviour. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
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.
Access control and model-provider retention are addressed while retention, deletion and incident practice for the vendor's own storage are not, which places this at C. The security page states encryption in transit and at rest, single sign-on and role-based access control aligned to least privilege, and zero-data-retention agreements with model providers so inputs are not retained by them. It says the trust centre lists subprocessors, but that page returns no content to automated retrieval and could not be read on this date.
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 licence survives termination. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
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.
Liability is addressed only through a standard limitation that disclaims the exposure the product creates, which is the C band. The terms provide the service and all output as is, with no warranty that output is free of errors, state that the user is solely responsible for the accuracy, quality and usability of output and that &AI has no liability for it, and 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. Verified 18 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
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.
No integration into practice systems located. Searched the home, product, pricing, security and terms pages on 18 September 2026. 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. Verified 18 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
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.
Deployment options are stated with partial residency detail, which is the B band. 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 processing location for third-party model calls is not separated from storage. Verified 18 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
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.
A named attestation with a stated request route, short of evidence a reader can see, which is the B band. The security page says &AI holds a SOC 2 Type II attestation and that the report can be requested through its trust centre, which also lists certifications and subprocessors. That trust centre returns no content to automated retrieval and could not be read on this date, so the auditor, report period and whether the request is self-serve could not be established and the top band is not asserted on it. Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
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.
Third-party model providers are acknowledged without being identified, which is the C band. The security page refers to zero-data-retention agreements with the vendor's model providers, 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 any readable surface, and no change notification is described; the terms reserve the right to change the services without notice.
The subprocessor list in the trust centre, which may name providers, could not be read on this date. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
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.
A buyer can price the work before speaking to anyone, which is the A band. The pricing page publishes pay-as-you-go credits at $0.40 each, a Pro plan at $625 per user per month including 2,500 credits with further credits at $0.25, a 20 per cent annual discount, an Opportunities add-on at $175 per user and $50 per non-user attorney, and custom Enterprise terms. It then 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, priced at each rate, so $96.40 or $48.20 for a chart 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. A pricing row is written. Verified 18 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
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.
Segments and workflows are described precisely with one limit stated, short of full boundaries, which is the B band. The vendor names law firms from the Am Law 100 to IP boutiques, plaintiff and defence counsel, and in-house teams for litigation preparation, infringement mining and transactions, and it covers invalidity under sections 101, 102, 103 and 112, evidence of use, IPR and district court work. Its comparison page states where it stops, saying prosecution and drafting-centred work is better served by a named competitor.
Patent coverage is described as major jurisdictions without a list, and government use is not addressed. Verified 18 September 2026.
7 public documents
The public pages on file for &AI, 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.
-
tryandai.com/privacy2 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
tryandai.com/product/claim-charts2 signals
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour, Court Disclosure Support
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
tryandai.com1 signal
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
tryandai.com/pricing1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
tryandai.com/security1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
tryandai.com/terms1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 18, 2026
$625 / user / monthUSD, as published, never converted
- You can pay $0.40 for each credit with no monthly commitment.
- The Pro plan costs $625 per person each month and includes 2,500 credits.
- An average claim chart uses about 241 credits, so it costs roughly $48 to $96 depending on your plan.
- Paying yearly is 20% cheaper, and there is a 7-day free trial.
- Big teams get custom Enterprise pricing.
Pay as you go: $0.40 per credit, no monthly commitment. Pro: $625 per user per month, 2,500 credits included, further credits $0.25; 20% off on annual billing. Enterprise: custom credit volume and rate, SSO and RBAC, custom integrations, single-tenant architecture or self-hosted models, passthrough invoicing. Opportunities add-on: $175 per user per month, $50 per non-user attorney per month. Credits are pooled across an organisation.
Vendor averages to July 2026: claim chart 241 credits, prior art search 176 credits. Self-serve trial: 7 days or 1,000 credits, payment method required; subscriptions auto-renew.
Note: Figures from the vendor's pricing page and Terms of Service (effective 18 June 2026), read 18 September 2026. The page shows a 20% annual discount toggle; the monthly Pro figure is recorded. Worked costs per claim chart and per search are the vendor's averages over the 90 days to July 2026.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA 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.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The published agreement expressly reserves a right to train on customer content, with no opt out located. Any de identification, anonymisation or aggregation qualifier is recorded in the summary.
The published Terms of Service grant an unbounded licence over customer content that never names training, against marketing that says no training occurs. Section 5 grants &AI a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, transferable licence to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and otherwise use content users upload, and to make it available to other users; no purpose limit, deletion or opt out is attached.
The home and security pages state that &AI and its subprocessors never train on customer or client data under zero-data-retention agreements with model providers, and the privacy policy's page description refers to no-training commitments that its text does not contain.
Prompt and Output Retention
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 acknowledged without a period for the vendor's own storage. The privacy policy keeps personal information as long as necessary for its purposes and does not address uploaded case material, prompts or outputs. The security page states that zero-data-retention agreements with model providers mean inputs are not retained by those providers. No customer retention setting, deletion commitment or post-termination period is published, and the terms' content licence is perpetual.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Access segregation is asserted through single sign-on and role-based access control, with no published detail on matter-level walls. The security page says access follows least privilege under the customer's administrators; the product works by matter. Nothing documents how access is separated between matters or teams, and the terms state that &AI may make uploaded content available to other users of the platform.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.
Disclosure in response to legal process is addressed and customer notice is not. The privacy policy permits sharing information with third parties when &AI believes, in its sole discretion, that doing so is necessary to comply with law, a court order, a subpoena or other legal process. Neither the policy nor the Terms of Service commit to notifying the customer or reserve a position on notice.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction and material type without identifying the underlying databases. The vendor says it searches more than 60 million patent publications from major jurisdictions, plus non-patent literature such as research papers, standards and clinical trials from across the internet, and product listings, manuals, videos and teardowns. The jurisdictions are not listed, no data source or licence is named, and no update cadence is published.
Good Law Verification
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.
Searched the home, product, security and pricing pages on 18 September 2026. On a patent platform the good-law question is whether a cited patent remains in force; the product surfaces a patent's family, prosecution history and prior cases, but nothing states that legal status is checked or shown for cited patents or authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The product exposes a confidence or grounding score without an explicit abstention path.
Evidence is scored and explained without a documented abstention path. The vendor says it retrieves and scores evidence against each claim limitation and proposes each piece with a short relevance rationale for the user to accept or reject. Nothing describes what the system does when no adequate evidence exists for a limitation, or what Andy or the drafting tools do when they cannot support a statement.
Fabricated Citation Record
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.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court records addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from &AI. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
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.
Searched the home, product, security, pricing, terms and privacy pages and the blog index on 18 September 2026. No bar ethics opinion or court rule on AI is named or engaged in connection with the product. The blog addresses privilege risks of AI on patent work in general terms, which was not located in full.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The vendor’s charge reaches the client as a disbursement or case expense, typically advanced by a contingency firm and recovered from a settlement, so the fee question is disclosure of a pass through cost rather than compressed hours. The summary records whether the vendor addresses that disclosure.
The vendor's charge is built to follow the matter and reach the client, and client disclosure is not addressed. The Enterprise plan offers passthrough invoicing, the pricing page argues that credits track work performed by matter, and the vendor's blog asks why patent AI is sold by the seat when patent work is billed by the matter. The release announcing its seed round reported customer time savings of 70 to 90 per cent. No guidance addresses how a firm should disclose or pass these charges to its client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
This signal has not been recorded for this vendor yet. It is not a finding either way.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Some elements of a record travel with exported charts, short of a full disclosure record. Every citation in an exported claim chart points to a specific passage, figure or timestamp and must have been approved by the user, and the vendor says exports contain no generated language. Nothing records which model proposed the evidence, and no disclosure export is described for drafted contentions or expert reports, which do contain generated text.