D
DorothyAI
DorothyAI is a patent search and IP analysis platform for patent attorneys and agents and the businesses they advise, published by Three10 Legal, Inc. Activ8 Novelty searches the worldwide patent collection from a plain English description of an invention rather than keywords and Boolean operators; Activ8 Freedom searches the claims of granted patents for a product, its components and combinations of them to assess infringement risk; AskDot is a generative assistant over DorothyAI's global patent database; and Activ8 Alignment pulls prior art together with market, regulatory and court data into a shareable report that can be refreshed on a schedule or on demand.
CrossCite prepares primary and supplemental Information Disclosure Statements for patent prosecution. Underneath sits Adaptive Research Technology, the vendor's framework for querying several search models at once and surfacing the results that more than one model agrees on. The platform is sold on a monthly subscription with a free trial; separately, DorothyAI sells People+AI report services staffed by a network it describes as more than 200 advisors.
DorothyAI, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to DorothyAI
Vendors in the same categories as DorothyAI 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.
- HHuski.aiHuski.ai is an AI trademark platform for IP attorneys, paralegals and legal staff, covering search, docketing, watch and online brand protection.
- CCorsearchCorsearch is a trademark and brand protection provider combining AI technology with expert services.
- IIP AuthorIP Author is an AI patent platform for practitioners, covering drafting, prior art search, office action responses, claim drafting, invention management and patent classification.
- PPatentWatchPatentWatch is an AI platform for finding out who is infringing a patent portfolio and building the evidence to act on it.
- TTriangle IPTriangle IP is a patent pipeline and prosecution analytics platform from Triangle IP, Inc., a Colorado company.
- BBrandShieldBrandShield is a brand protection and external cybersecurity platform from Brandshield Ltd. of Herzliya, Israel.
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.
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 search models are the product. DorothyAI's own description is a suite built on artificial-intelligence search: Activ8 Novelty takes a plain-English description of an invention instead of keywords and Boolean operators, Activ8 Freedom reads the claims of granted patents for a product and its components, AskDot is a generative assistant over the patent database, and Adaptive Research Technology runs combinations of natural language processing, machine learning and legacy search models at once and surfaces results that more than one model agrees on. Take those away and what is left is a patent collection with no way into it that the vendor sells.
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.
The search method is described and nothing about it is measured. Adaptive Research Technology is set out clearly on the products page: several models optimized for different subject matter are queried simultaneously and results confirmed by more than one model are treated as the good ones, which the vendor contrasts with tuning a single model. Results are patent documents a reader can open. What is claimed and never tested is that this returns the best results every time and removes inconsistency across subject matter: no recall or precision figure, no benchmark, no test set and no error analysis is published.
Nothing describes how AskDot's generated answers tie back to the patents behind them, which is the part of the suite where a wrong answer is hardest to see.
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.
Human involvement is the pitch and the control structure is not described. The People+AI page puts more than 200 advisors alongside the tools and says the expert team runs the search and delivers the result, which describes a staffed service rather than a review step inside the platform. For the software a firm licenses, nothing published says what runs unattended, what a user must check before relying on a novelty or freedom-to-operate result, or what happens when the models disagree beyond the statement that agreement between models is how good results are picked.
CrossCite is said to give control over references and intelligent filtering when building an Information Disclosure Statement, which is the nearest thing to a described review point.
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.
Three case studies are published and not one names anybody. The case studies page describes a leading technology firm that used an Activ8 Alignment report to design around a freedom-to-operate risk and then moved to quarterly monitoring, a prominent law firm that built an international filing strategy for an oil and gas client, and a mid-sized law firm that added patent landscapes and competitive intelligence to its practice.
No customer is identified, no date is given, and no figure appears in any of them; the homepage testimonials carry photographs with no names or firms. What a buyer can take from the record is a description of how the reports are used rather than evidence of what they achieved.
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.
Nothing published says what happens to a search. This matters here: a freedom to operate query describes an unreleased product, and a novelty search describes an invention before it is filed, so the queries themselves are among the most sensitive things an IP practice holds. The Terms of Service, which govern the platform, address accounts, subscriptions, prohibited uses and intellectual property in the site's own content, and say nothing about the confidentiality of what a user enters or the results returned.
The Privacy Policy covers personal information collected through the websites and does not reach search content. No statement on training, segregation between customers, privilege or work product is published.
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. 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.
The audience is left open at exactly the point where it matters. The products page addresses patent attorneys and their clients together. It frames Activ8 Novelty around the first question any inventor, scientist, entrepreneur or business person asks, whether an invention is patentable, which is a legal conclusion when someone who is not a lawyer acts on it. CrossCite is said to be tailored to meet the latest USPTO guidance on AI tools for Information Disclosure Statement submissions, the one place the site engages with a practitioner duty.
No statement that the output is not legal advice, no description of the user's own review duty, and no jurisdiction limit is published.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
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 governance position is published for a system whose results decide whether an invention is filed or a product is launched. Adaptive Research Technology is described as a design choice about how search models are combined, not as a governance regime: nobody inside the company is named as accountable for model behavior, nothing describes what is tested before a change ships, no evaluation is published, and nothing addresses whether results vary in quality by technology area, language or jurisdiction, which the vendor itself says is the weakness of single-model platforms.
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.
Nothing published states how long searches, uploads or reports are kept, who inside the vendor can reach them, or what is deleted when a subscription ends. The Privacy Policy is written for the websites: it lists cookies, log files and analytics in detail, and its headings for international transfers, access and correction and commitment to security carry no text at all on the page as served. The Terms of Service address billing, accounts and prohibited uses. No subprocessor list, encryption statement or incident practice is published.
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.
The published position is a standard disclaimer and a cap set at what the customer paid. The Terms of Service provide the services as is and as available, disclaim all warranties including accuracy, reliability and fitness, and state that if liability is found it is limited to the amount paid for the products or services, with no consequential or punitive damages. No indemnity runs from the vendor, no warranty attaches to search results, and no insurance position appears.
For a product whose output supports a filing or launch decision, nothing addresses what happens if a material reference is missed.
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 the systems a patent practice runs is published. Nothing names a docketing or IP management system, a document management system, an office add-in or an API, and CrossCite, which prepares Information Disclosure Statements, is described as generating the statements without saying how they reach a prosecution system or the USPTO. The platform is reached through its own web application.
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.
Nothing published states where the software runs or where a customer's searches are stored. The platform is delivered over the web at search.dorothyai.com; no tenancy model is described, no hosting provider or region is named, and the Privacy Policy's international transfers heading carries no text on the page as served. A practice with client-imposed residency requirements would have to establish all of it in a sales conversation.
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.
No independent security attestation is published. There is no security page and no trust center, no SOC 2, ISO 27001 or comparable standard is claimed anywhere, no auditor or penetration test is mentioned, and the Privacy Policy's own commitment to security heading carries no text on the page as served.
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.
The architecture is described and the models are not identified. Adaptive Research Technology is presented as the vendor's proprietary framework for querying combinations of natural language processing, machine learning and legacy search models optimized for particular subject matter, and AskDot is called a generative AI tool over the patent database. No model, version or provider is named, nothing states whether the generative layer runs on a third party's service or the vendor's own, and no commitment to notify customers when any of it changes is published.
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.
The shape of the commercial offer is visible and the numbers are not. The Terms of Service state that parts of the service are sold on subscription, billed in advance on a monthly cycle and renewing automatically, that a free trial may be offered and converts to a paid subscription unless canceled, that fees are non-refundable, and that fee changes take effect at the end of a billing cycle. The products are separately named and split by function, the products page invites inquiries about Alignment Bundles, and the People+AI page offers an instant quote form for patentability, freedom-to-operate and invalidity searches. No rate, tier price or unit of charge appears anywhere, and every route ends at a demo booking or a quote request.
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.
The data behind the product is described specifically, and the limits are not. The published answer to what sources the search tools use names thirteen kinds: global patents, trademarks, SEC filings, licensing, agreements, assignments, litigation, financial data, market data by product category and supply chain information. A Jurisdictional Realities Database is described as weighing more than thirty factors per jurisdiction, covering innovation ecosystems, government policy and judicial systems, to inform filing strategy.
The buyers addressed run from patent attorneys and law firms to in house teams, entrepreneurs and inventors. Coverage by jurisdiction or date range for the patent collection itself is not stated, nor how current it is or which technology areas the models handle less well.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for DorothyAI, 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.
-
dorothyai.com/people-ai2 signals
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
dorothyai.com/privacy-policy1 signal
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
dorothyai.com/products1 signal
Bar Guidance Alignment
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
dorothyai.com/terms-of-service1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 20, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 20, 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?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
The published Terms of Service govern the platform and never address training either way. They reserve the vendor's rights in its own content while excluding content provided by users from that reservation, and they take a broad license over feedback only. No improvement or model-training right over user searches is granted anywhere, and no policy page states a position, so a firm has nothing to hold the vendor to in either direction.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
Search queries, invention descriptions and generated reports sit under no published retention period or deletion commitment. No retention period is published for search queries, invention descriptions, uploaded material or generated reports, and no deletion commitment applies when a subscription ends; the Privacy Policy covers personal information collected through the websites and does not reach search content.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
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.
Shared accounts have no described separation. Nothing addresses separation between users, matters or customers, and nothing describes whether one practitioner's searches are visible to colleagues sharing an account. The question has weight for a product where a single query can reveal a client's unfiled invention.
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.
The Privacy Policy says information may be disclosed in response to subpoenas, court orders and other lawful requests by regulators or law enforcement, and makes no commitment to notify anyone. It is written for the websites rather than for search content, and the Terms of Service do not address legal process at all.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
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 published answer to what the search tools draw on lists thirteen kinds of data: global patents, trademarks, SEC filings, licensing, agreements, assignments, litigation, financial data, market data by product category and supply chain information. They are described by class rather than by provider, no license or rights basis is given for any of them, and no update cadence for the patent collection 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.
For a patent product this asks whether the tool tells a reader that a patent is still in force. Checked the homepage, the products page, People+AI, the case studies, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 20 September 2026. Nothing describes a legal status, lapse or expiry determination on the patents returned, although the alignment reports cover litigation, assignment and licensing data.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
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.
Agreement across search models ranks results, but nothing signals when the answer may not be there. Nothing describes what the tools do when a search finds nothing relevant or AskDot cannot answer from the patent database. The nearest published mechanism is that results confirmed by more than one search model are treated as the good ones, which ranks what was found rather than signaling that the answer may not be there.
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 on 20 September 2026 on the product names DorothyAI and AskDot and the corporate name Three10 Legal. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
The products page says CrossCite is tailored to meet the latest USPTO guidance on AI tools for Information Disclosure Statement submissions. That refers to a practitioner duty without naming, dating or quoting the guidance, and the blog listing includes a post on AI in patent matters before the USPTO. No ethics opinion, bar guidance or USPTO notice is identified anywhere on the pages that could be read.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
The published case is speed and substitution: reports delivered in minutes rather than weeks, some within 24 hours, and the claim that the reports give associates the equivalent expertise of hiring additional analysts overnight. The buyers include law firms that bill this work to clients. Nothing addresses how the saving is reflected on a client's bill, or whether a report charge is passed through as a disbursement.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
A firm asked which providers see its clients' searches would find no subprocessor or model provider list to forward. No subprocessor list, model provider list or client-facing disclosure material was located, and there is no trust page or documented route to request any of it.
Court Disclosure Support
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.
Information Disclosure Statements go to the patent office, but no record shows which model produced a result or who checked it. CrossCite produces primary and supplemental Information Disclosure Statements, which is a disclosure of references to the patent office rather than a record of AI use, and nothing records which model produced a result or who checked it.