J
Juristat
Juristat is a patent prosecution analytics and workflow platform built on United States Patent and Trademark Office data, sold to patent law firms and to corporate IP, legal operations, IP strategy and finance teams. Juristat Analytics turns data on more than ten million patent applications into examiner analytics, prosecution strategy and cost forecasting, appeals benchmarking, portfolio management, competitor comparison, maintenance-fee pruning, outside counsel scorecards and custom reports and alerts, with an AI-Powered Insight feature that answers questions in plain language grounded in the USPTO dataset and returns quantified, source-backed answers; Office Action Strategy Briefs and Juristat OAR prepare and manage office action responses, and Juristat IDS generates and audits information disclosure statements by traversing patent family trees. A Data Layer with Model Context Protocol access supplies Juristat's structured patent data to customers' own AI systems. The company is Juristat, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, and states customers including more than a third of the top hundred patent law firms, with named quotes from Sterne Kessler, Orrick, Quarles, Harness IP, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff and Barnes & Thornburg and logos including TSMC, Lenovo, Shell, Dentons and McDermott. Pricing is by custom quote, with a Solo single-seat tier offered at one price, and the company publishes a terms of use and a privacy policy and maintains a Secureframe trust centre.
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 engine of a core capability layered on a product that would still function without them. The analytics dashboards, examiner statistics, cost forecasts and appeals benchmarks are computed from USPTO data and the vendor has sold them for more than a decade; AI-Powered Insight, the AI in OAR and IDS, and the Data Layer for customers' own AI sit on top. Remove the language models and the analytics platform stands. Home page, analytics page, AI-Powered Insight page and pricing page read 6 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 with source-backed output, short of a testable accuracy figure. The AI-Powered Insight page states the AI is built for patent work, grounded in Juristat's USPTO dataset, trained on live USPTO data, and returns quantified, source-backed answers instead of guesses, with the vendor contrasting it against general-purpose tools; the underlying dataset is stated at more than ten million applications and 12.7 billion data points. No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation for the AI answers is published on the surfaces read, and the citation limbs apply to USPTO records rather than case law. AI-Powered Insight page and pricing page read 6 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.
Constraints and review surfaces are published, short of the full control structure. The AI-Powered Insight page states that administrators manage roles, thresholds and alert policies so teams and outside counsel follow the same playbook, that users can set rules and alerts to enforce prosecution policy, and that the platform returns exportable briefs and dashboards rather than filed documents; OAR prepares office action responses for the practitioner and the IDS product gathers and generates statements for review. What is not published is a threshold at which any output is acted on without a practitioner or a stated route back after a wrong answer beyond the user's review. AI-Powered Insight page and workflow-automation FAQ read 6 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.
Named customers with figures, short of a date or method. The pricing page attributes quotes by name and title: Ray Millien, chief executive of Harness IP, states thirty to sixty minutes saved on average per case with Juristat OAR; a patent attorney states three new applications cover the cost of Juristat; Sterne Kessler's chief information officer states a partnership of more than five years; Orrick, Quarles, Polsinelli, Lewis Rice, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff and Barnes & Thornburg are quoted by named people. The vendor's own figures, sixty per cent first-year return on OAR, thirty-two per cent IDS cost reduction and ten to twenty per cent annual cost reduction, are unattributed. No figure carries a date or method. Pricing page and press kit read 6 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.
Confidentiality is addressed at the level of general assurance on the surfaces that could be read. The analytics and solutions pages state industry-best security standards, constant monitoring and clear privacy practices, the AI-Powered Insight page states role and threshold administration, and a Secureframe trust centre is linked from the footer; the Terms of Use, which would carry training, retention and disclosure terms, is linked from the footer but did not surface in search and is not fetchable on this channel, and the trust centre was not opened. Nothing read addresses training use, retention, privilege or work product, or names the model providers; much of the product's input is public USPTO data, but OAR and IDS handle the customer's own prosecution files. Pricing page, analytics page and AI-Powered Insight page read 6 September 2026; the Terms of Use and trust centre are the rebuttal route.
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.
No advice line or supervision statement was located on the surfaces read. The product is sold to patent attorneys and agents and to corporate IP teams, and the AI-Powered Insight page frames outputs as answers and briefs for practitioners; whether the Terms of Use disclaim legal advice or address a practitioner's duties was not established because that document could not be retrieved. No jurisdiction limit beyond the USPTO scope is named. AI-Powered Insight page and personas navigation read 6 September 2026; the Terms of Use are the rebuttal route.
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.
Positioning without a governance framework, testing regime or accountable owner. The vendor publishes material on evaluating AI tools and on separating hype from practical reality, and states its AI is built for IP and grounded in trusted data, which is product positioning; no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, pre-release testing results or statement about uneven output across art units or examiners is published on the surfaces read. AI-Powered Insight page and resources index read 6 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.
Some of the ground is covered on the surfaces read and the rest sits in documents not retrievable on this channel. Access control: role, threshold and alert administration on the AI-Powered Insight page, and a general statement of industry-best security standards and constant monitoring. Not located: a retention period, a deletion commitment, a sub-processor list or an incident-notification practice; a Secureframe trust centre is linked from the footer and was not opened, and the privacy policy and Terms of Use are link-only. Those are the rebuttal route. Analytics page, AI-Powered Insight page and footer read 6 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.
No liability position was located on the surfaces that could be read, and the surface that would carry one could not be reached. A Terms of Use is linked from the site footer; it did not surface in search and links inside fetched pages are not fetchable on this channel, and pricing is by custom quote under an order the vendor does not publish. This records what is locatable on the date and not a finding that no position exists; the Terms of Use is the rebuttal route and would replace this grade on a read. Pricing page and footer read 6 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.
Real integrations with depth described for the one that matters most. The Data Layer offers Model Context Protocol access so a firm's own AI systems can draw on Juristat's structured patent data, with Sterne Kessler's chief information officer and chief operating officer quoted on its use in their AI stack; the AI-Powered Insight page states the product complements rather than replaces the system of record with analytics, AI answers, dashboards and exportable briefs; the workflow-automation FAQ describes IDS output delivered to a designated inbox and OAR working without logging into new tools. No docketing or document management integration is named with what syncs in which direction, and the AI integration resource page was not opened. AI-Powered Insight page, pricing page and workflow FAQ read 6 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.
Cloud delivery is stated and neither tenancy nor region is addressed. The product is a SaaS platform with a hosted application, and no hosting provider, region, residency option or tenancy model is stated on the surfaces read; the Secureframe trust centre was not opened and is the rebuttal route. Press kit and footer read 6 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 trust centre exists and no certification with scope was located on the surfaces read. The footer's Privacy and Security link resolves to a Secureframe-hosted trust centre, which typically carries certifications and reports, and the analytics page states industry-best security standards and constant monitoring; the trust centre was not opened, so no standard, auditor, coverage period or access tier is established, and this grade is rebuttable on it. Footer and analytics page read 6 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.
The vendor describes its AI without identifying what sits underneath. The AI-Powered Insight page states the AI is built for IP, trained on live USPTO data and grounded in Juristat's dataset, and the Data Layer supplies structured data to customers' own models; no provider, model, inference location or change-notification commitment is named on the surfaces read. The trust centre and Terms of Use are the rebuttal route. AI-Powered Insight page read 6 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.
Tier names and a charging shape are published and the figures are gated or on a page not read. The pricing page offers a customised estimate through a four-question request, states a Solo tier for a single practitioner at one price with analytics and Data Layer MCP access, and frames value as ten to twenty per cent of IP costs saved; the Solo tier page on the resources subdomain, which may carry the figure, was not opened and is the rebuttal route to B. No per-seat figure or term appears on the pricing page itself. Pricing page read 6 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.
Segment and coverage are described with substance and the boundary is the product's stated scope. Role pages address general counsel and heads of IP, patent attorneys and agents, legal operations, IP strategists, corporate finance and IP law firms; use cases span forecasting, portfolio management, prosecution strategy, cost savings, competitive intelligence, outside counsel management, business development and workflow automation; the data is stated as the complete USPTO dataset, more than twenty years of patent data and a hundred million applications tracked. The USPTO scope is the stated limit; no foreign office coverage is claimed on the surfaces read. Pricing page navigation and press kit read 6 September 2026.
No published figure
- Most customers get a custom quote after answering four questions about their needs.
- One lawyer working alone can buy a Solo plan at a single fixed price, though we did not see the number.
- The company says top filers cut their patent costs by 10 to 20 percent using it.
Structure published without a figure on the surfaces read. Enterprise pricing by customised estimate via a four-question request; a Solo tier for a single practitioner described as single seat, one price, with Analytics and Data Layer MCP access, offered on a resources page not opened on 6 September 2026 and the rebuttal route to a figure; value framed as ten to twenty per cent IP cost reduction. Null means no figure was located, not that the product is free. Pricing page read 6 September 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.
No located public material addresses whether customer content trains models, and the agreement that would carry a term could not be read. The AI-Powered Insight page states the AI is trained on live USPTO data, which is public record rather than customer content; the Terms of Use is linked from the footer but did not surface in search and is not fetchable on this channel, and the Secureframe trust centre was not opened. Those are the rebuttal route in either direction. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses how long questions to the AI, generated briefs or uploaded prosecution files are retained. The analytics page states clear privacy practices without a period, and the Terms of Use, privacy policy and trust centre were not retrievable or not opened and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
The product maintains its own permission model and documents it at the level of a description. The AI-Powered Insight page states that administrators manage roles, thresholds and alert policies across teams and outside counsel, and custom dashboards are described as unique to an account; nothing describes how one client's prosecution files are walled from another's within a firm account or how the AI respects those permissions, and no document management system's access model is inherited. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
No located public material addresses whether the customer is told when its data is demanded by a third party. The Terms of Use and privacy policy are link-only and were not retrievable on this channel, and are the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
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 licence or rights basis.
The corpus is named and its scope stated, without the rights basis or cadence. The AI answers are grounded in Juristat's dataset of USPTO prosecution records, stated as more than ten million pending, abandoned and granted applications, twenty-plus years of complete patent data and 12.7 billion data points, trained on live USPTO data; nothing states the licence or public-record basis on which the data is obtained or how often it is refreshed beyond the word live. AI-Powered Insight page and pricing page read 6 September 2026.
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.
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history. The product analyses prosecution records and examiner behaviour rather than citing case law, and the appeals module benchmarks outcomes on similar cases rather than reporting treatment. Recorded as the honest value for a product without a citator function. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
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.
No located public material describes what the AI does when the dataset cannot support an answer. The AI-Powered Insight page states answers are quantified and source-backed rather than guesses, which is a design claim rather than an abstention path, and no confidence signal is described. AI-Powered Insight page checked 6 September 2026.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Juristat was located as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the name together with a general search for court findings in patent matters; results returned a District of Kansas show-cause order concerning patent counsel's use of unnamed generative AI tools and sanctions involving general-purpose chatbots, none of which names this product. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product; an analytics tool that cites USPTO records rather than case law carries a remote exposure on this signal.
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.
No located public material names an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework. The vendor publishes practitioner-facing content on evaluating AI tools and on billing with AI, which is commentary rather than guidance alignment; the Terms of Use were not retrievable. Resources index and AI-Powered Insight page checked 6 September 2026.
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.
Law firms are a named buyer segment and the published position on the bill is a savings claim with a resource that addresses billing directly: the vendor's Work Smarter, Bill Smarter resource on how patent teams use AI, the ten to twenty per cent cost-reduction claims, and named customer quotes on minutes saved per case and price pressure from clients. The resource itself was not opened, so whether it records AI-assisted work per matter or addresses fee disclosure is not established; on the surfaces read nothing does. Pricing page and resources navigation checked 6 September 2026; the Bill Smarter resource is the rebuttal route.
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.
No sub-processor list, model provider list or forwardable disclosure material was located on the surfaces read. A Secureframe trust centre is linked from the footer and typically carries a sub-processor list; it was not opened on 6 September 2026, and together with the Terms of Use it is the rebuttal route to a higher value. AI-Powered Insight page and footer checked.
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 verification record are available and no export of an AI-use record is described. AI answers are stated to be source-backed to USPTO records and briefs are exportable, which lets a practitioner show the data behind a strategy; nothing states that a record of the model used and the practitioner's verification can be exported, and the product's outputs inform prosecution strategy rather than court filings. AI-Powered Insight page checked 6 September 2026.