Patlytics
AI native platform covering the full patent lifecycle for law firm and in house IP teams, spanning invention harvesting and disclosure, patent application drafting and prosecution, prior art search, infringement analysis, invalidity contentions, claim construction, claim charting, transactional due diligence and portfolio management in a single system rather than through point tools. Patent Infringement Detection analyses claims and claim elements to identify potential infringement across targeted companies and products, automating technical discovery by surfacing instances of use and evidence of use from large data sets. Claim charting maps patent claims to supporting evidence claim by claim and element by element, supporting both infringement and non infringement analysis, and charts can be generated automatically from a Detection Report or a Portfolio Heatmap. Portfolio Heatmaps assess up to 250 patents simultaneously against multiple target products, first classifying and grouping uploaded patents into distinct technology areas to reduce noise and false negatives, then aggregating read strengths and assigning a High, Medium or Low infringement risk score to each patent product pair. Patent Pruning identifies high potential and low value assets through large scale portfolio comparison to support decisions on maintaining, monetising, enforcing, licensing or abandoning. The vendor states its models are fine tuned on more than 50 million global public patents and designed to safeguard against hallucinations, with citation backed outputs, auditing of sources for relevance, and colour coded confidence indicators. Security statements include SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certification, encryption in transit and at rest, customer data siloed and segregated between customers, least privilege access, 24/7 monitoring with on call rotation in North America and Asia Pacific, penetration testing conducted with NCC Group and A-LIGN, and user history stored for 90 days and deletable. Stated adoption covers more than 40 percent of Am Law 100 IP practices alongside Fortune 500 companies and firms ranked by Chambers, IAM Patent 1000 and Legal 500. Headquartered in New York. Total funding is approximately $65m raised in under two and a half years, including a $14m Series A led by Next47 in February 2025 and a $40m Series B led by SignalFire announced 8 April 2026, with investors including Relativity, Myriad Venture Partners, Liquid 2 Ventures, 8VC and Gradient Ventures. Pricing is not published.
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.
AI native by construction and by the vendor's own framing, with a proprietary corpus underneath. Models are stated to be fine tuned on more than 50 million global public patents, which is model work on a domain corpus rather than a general assistant pointed at patent documents, and the vendor positions the platform explicitly against point tools. Every capability is model output: claim element decomposition, instances and evidence of use surfacing from large data sets, automatic claim chart generation mapping evidence to claim limitations, technology area classification and grouping ahead of portfolio analysis, read strength aggregation into High Medium Low risk scores, and application drafting. Remove the models and there is no product. First A on this axis outside the plaintiff category since Descrybe, and it opens ip-and-patents at the same level.
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.
Three distinct grounding mechanisms are named and the hallucination question is addressed directly, short of any published measurement. The vendor states citation backed outputs, auditing of sources for relevance, and colour coded confidence indicators, and describes its models as designed to safeguard against hallucinations, which is naming the failure mode rather than avoiding it. Colour coded confidence is the notable element: it surfaces the model's own certainty to the user at the point of reading rather than leaving a confident wrong answer indistinguishable from a confident right one, and almost nothing on this index does that. The claim charting architecture reinforces it structurally, since a chart maps a specific claim limitation to a specific piece of product evidence and is falsifiable on its face. Held at B because nothing is quantified: no accuracy figure, no precision or recall on evidence of use detection, no false positive rate on infringement scoring, no evaluation and no benchmark. A vendor with ISO 42001 certification has an AI management system and still publishes no measured output from it.
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.
Oversight is designed into how results are presented rather than asserted as a principle. Published material states that AI automates the repetitive and time intensive parts of infringement analysis while preserving human control over legal judgment, and the product design supports that: risk scores are surfaced as High, Medium or Low for triage rather than as conclusions, colour coded confidence indicators travel with the output, sources are audited for relevance and shown, and claim charts present evidence mapped to limitations for an attorney to accept or reject. Portfolio Heatmaps are framed as narrowing a broad portfolio to a smaller set of actionable targets, which is triage feeding human judgement. Held at B because no boundary is published: nothing states what the system does unattended, whether any output can be relied on without review, what the confidence bands actually mean numerically, or what threshold separates a High from a Medium. Colour coding a confidence level without publishing what the colours represent is a signal without a scale.
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 penetration, a named practitioner at a named firm, and dated funding, all independently checkable. Adoption is stated as more than 40 percent of Am Law 100 IP practices, which is a specific and falsifiable market penetration claim rather than a logo wall, alongside Fortune 500 companies and firms ranked by Chambers, IAM Patent 1000 and Legal 500. Attributed comment: Yury Kapgan, Partner and Co-Chair of the Artificial Intelligence Practice Group at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, quoted by name and title in the dated 8 April 2026 Series B announcement describing the specific workflows the platform covers. A reader can identify the firm, the partner and the date without contacting the vendor. Funding is dated and specific: approximately $65m total, a $14m Series A led by Next47 in February 2025 and a $40m Series B led by SignalFire on 8 April 2026, with Relativity among named investors. Customer impact figures are published as 80 percent reduction in project time, more than $30,000 saved per claim chart, and up to 15 hours recovered per patent application. Those carry no methodology or baseline and the note records that; the grade rests on the named and checkable elements rather than on the percentages.
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 second record in 48 to engage professional confidentiality directly, after Eve, and the first to engage the specific rule that governs it. The vendor publishes practitioner facing material built around Model Rule 1.6 on attorney confidentiality, USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 CFR and 35 U.S.C. section 102 on prior disclosure bars, and states the point that makes this category different from every other on the index: an unpublished patent application exposed to the wrong tool does not merely create a compliance problem, it can permanently extinguish the client's patent rights. Naming that consequence correctly is a demonstration of understanding rather than a marketing claim. The controls behind it are specific: customer data siloed and segregated between customers, encryption in transit and at rest, least privilege access, user history retained 90 days and deletable, and a stated commitment that customer data is never used to train models. Graded A because it is strictly more than the B records elsewhere on the index, which carry comparable controls with no engagement with the professional obligation at all. Held short of a perfect record because the confidentiality controls are asserted rather than documented and no privilege specific attestation exists.
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.
The most specific professional responsibility material located in the pull. The vendor publishes a due diligence checklist written explicitly for patent practitioners rather than IT directors, naming USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 CFR, Model Rule 1.6, 35 U.S.C. section 102 prior disclosure bars, and duty of competence obligations under state bar rules, and setting them against enterprise security concepts including tenant isolation, model training on confidential inputs, vendor employee access to stored work product and breach notification. Naming the specific rules and the specific technical threat vectors together, and explaining why the stakes differ for patent work, is a genuine professional responsibility position and it exceeds ProPlaintiff's ABA Model Rules reference in specificity. Held at B rather than A on the same basis applied to ProPlaintiff: it is published as market education in a blog library rather than as a product commitment or a contractual term, nothing binds the vendor to it, and it addresses how a practitioner should evaluate tools rather than what this vendor undertakes.
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.
FIRST ISO 42001 CERTIFICATION ON THE INDEX, across 48 records. ISO/IEC 42001 is the artificial intelligence management system standard, and unlike a security certification it covers governance of the AI itself: risk management for AI systems, defined roles and accountability, impact assessment, and lifecycle controls, independently audited. Every record graded on this axis before now was assessed against published policies, model cards or evaluations, and every plaintiff category record graded D. This vendor holds a third party audited AI governance management system. Supporting disclosures are consistent with it: named hallucination safeguards, source auditing, confidence indicators, stated model training boundaries and named penetration testing partners. Held at B rather than A because certification of a management system is evidence that governance processes exist and were audited, not evidence of what they found: no bias or fairness testing result, no model card, no evaluation output, no accuracy monitoring figures, no drift statement and no named internal governance body were located, and no certificate date, auditor or scope is published for the ISO 42001 itself.
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.
A strong and specific stewardship position, undermined by the vendor contradicting itself on the same page. Published across product pages and repeated: customer data is encrypted in transit and at rest, segregated, and never used to train models, stated as guaranteed. Supporting specifics that few records match: user history stored for 90 days and deletable, customer data siloed between customers, least privilege access, 24/7 monitoring with named on call coverage, and models fine tuned on public patent data rather than customer content. THE CONTRADICTION: the same security page states that information is not utilised for training AI models without explicit consent or necessity. Never and not without consent or necessity are not the same commitment, and necessity is undefined and determined by the vendor. Held at B rather than A on that basis. The signal row records the contradiction with both formulations, and the note here flags it as the single thing a buyer should ask about in diligence.
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 published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. The exposure in this category is distinctive and severe: an invalidity search that misses prior art, a freedom to operate analysis that misses a blocking claim, or an infringement chart that maps evidence to the wrong limitation all carry consequences measured in litigation exposure or lost patent rights, and the vendor's own published material argues that patent work is uniquely high stakes because errors can permanently extinguish rights. Having made that argument, the vendor takes no public position on what happens when its own output is wrong. Checked the security page, the product pages, the blog library, the funding announcements and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Enterprise agreements govern this and are not public.
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.
Nothing located. No IP docketing system, patent management platform, document management system or law firm practice system integration was named, no API is described, and no export or workflow connector was found. The gap is notable in this category specifically because IP practice runs on docketing systems tracking prosecution deadlines and annuities, and a platform covering application drafting and prosecution would ordinarily need to reach them. One connection exists at the corporate level and is deliberately not credited as an integration: Relativity appears as an investor in the Series B, which is a funding relationship rather than a product relationship, and nothing describes any technical connection between the two platforms. Checked the product pages, the security page, the funding announcements, the blog library and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Strongest correction candidate on this record.
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 located about where data sits. No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no single tenant or dedicated instance option is described. Two published facts touch geography without answering the question and are recorded as not credited: 24/7 monitoring with on call rotation in North America and Asia Pacific describes where staff are, not where data is, and models fine tuned on global public patents describes corpus scope rather than infrastructure. Residency matters in this category because unpublished patent applications are subject to foreign filing licence requirements and export controls in several jurisdictions, and a firm would need to know where an unpublished application is processed before uploading one. Checked the security page, the product pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.
Three certifications, two named testing partners, and a dedicated security page publishing all of it openly without a gate. Certifications: SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, and ISO 42001, the last being the artificial intelligence management system standard and the first instance of it on this index. Penetration testing partners are named, NCC Group and A-LIGN, which is uncommon and materially better than the unnamed third party testing several records claim, since a reader can assess the testing house. Supporting controls are specific rather than generic: encryption in transit and at rest, customer data siloed and segregated, least privilege access, 24/7 monitoring with named regional on call coverage, and a stated 90 day user history retention with deletion. Published open rather than behind a request, which is the top tier under the three tier test. Held short of a perfect record on the familiar gap: no certificate dates, examination periods or certifying bodies are published for any of the three certifications, so currency cannot be established. Calibration: this sits with Lexis+ AI, Exterro and EvenUp at A, and is distinguished by breadth of framework coverage rather than by a publicly verifiable registry entry as Exterro has.
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.
Nothing located about the chain. The vendor states that its models are fine tuned on more than 50 million global public patents, which describes what the models were trained on and asserts ownership, and says nothing about what they were fine tuned from: no foundation model provider, model family or version is named, no subprocessor list is published, and nothing states whether any third party model processes customer content. Fine tuning necessarily implies a base model supplied by someone, so the disclosure confirms an upstream relationship exists while identifying no party in it. The gap sits awkwardly against ISO 42001 certification, since an AI management system standard addresses supply chain among its concerns, and against the vendor's own published checklist which tells practitioners to assess subprocessor risk. Checked the security page, the product pages, the blog library and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.
No pricing published at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure and no unit of charge, and no indication of whether the platform prices per seat, per matter, per patent analysed or per claim chart generated, which matters because the published value claim is denominated per claim chart at more than $30,000 saved and a buyer cannot set that against what a chart costs. Independent material describes enterprise subscriptions in this segment running to tens of thousands of dollars annually with cost depending on patents analysed, frequency of use and integration level, and describes Patlytics as competitively priced, which is third party characterisation rather than disclosure and is recorded as context. Every route is a demo request. Checked the product pages, the demo page, the pricing navigation and independent review material on 29 Aug 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.
Workflow coverage is the most complete in this category and is enumerated rather than gestured at. The lifecycle spans invention harvesting and disclosure, application drafting, prosecution, prior art search, infringement detection, invalidity contentions, claim construction, claim charting, transactional due diligence, portfolio management and pruning, and the vendor positions this end to end scope explicitly against point tools. Corpus scale is stated at more than 50 million global public patents with regular verification and updates for data accuracy, which addresses currency, an element most records on this index omit entirely. Buyer coverage spans law firm IP practices and in house teams. Held at B rather than A because the corpus is not characterised where a practitioner would check it: no jurisdictional breakdown of which patent offices are covered, no statement of historical depth, no update lag figure despite currency being claimed, and nothing on whether non patent literature is included, which for prior art and invalidity work is a material boundary.
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 public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
Policy never, recorded against a contradiction on the vendor's own security page. The dominant and repeated commitment, appearing across product pages and on the security page itself, is that customer data is encrypted, segregated and never used to train models, stated as guaranteed. The quoted sentence appears on the same page and says something materially weaker: not utilised for training without explicit consent or necessity. Never and not without consent or necessity are different commitments, and necessity is undefined and determined by the vendor rather than the customer. Recorded at policy never because the unqualified formulation is the dominant published claim and appears in more places, and because calling the record silent would erase a real commitment. Recorded as policy rather than contractual because both formulations sit on marketing and security pages rather than in terms or a data processing agreement. This is the single item a buyer should put to the vendor in diligence, and the note exists so a later reader asks the question rather than reading only the guarantee. Third contradiction of this shape in the pull, after Jhana.ai and the scoped commitments on LinkSquares and Eve.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
Disclosed fixed, with a stated period and a deletion right, which is among the best answers on this signal in the pull. The vendor states that user history is stored for 90 days and can be deleted. A named number of days is a commitment a customer can hold the vendor to and a reader can compare, and pairing it with deletion means retention is both bounded by default and shortenable on request. Only Exterro, at zero for its AI layer, states retention more precisely. Held at disclosed fixed rather than a configurable value because the 90 days is stated as the period rather than as a default a customer can vary, and because the scope is described as user history: nothing states whether uploaded patents, generated claim charts, detection reports and portfolio analyses are covered by the same period or retained separately, which for a platform holding unpublished applications is the question that matters most.
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.
Claimed and not documented, with more substance behind the claim than most records carry. The vendor states that customer data is siloed and segregated from each other to ensure privacy, and separately that a least privilege access approach is used, which together describe tenant isolation and internal access control rather than a generic assurance. The vendor's own practitioner checklist names cross matter data leakage and vendor employee access to stored work product as threat vectors that matter in legal software, so it has identified the right questions. What is not documented is the answer for its own product: no description of how segregation is enforced, no statement of whether isolation operates at matter level within a single firm as well as between customers, and no account of whether the AI layer respects those boundaries when analysing across a portfolio. A firm running conflicting matters for different clients in the same instance has no published basis to assess it.
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.
Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The stakes are specific in this category: the vendor holds unpublished patent applications and pre filing invention disclosures, and disclosure of an unpublished application to a third party can bear on prior art and prior disclosure questions, which the vendor's own published material identifies as capable of extinguishing patent rights permanently. Checked the security page, the product pages, the blog library and the site navigation on 29 Aug 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.
Named with scale and currency addressed, and no licence basis stated. The vendor states that its models are trained on more than 50 million global public patents, which names the corpus, quantifies it, and identifies it as public patent data, and separately states that it conducts regular verifications and updates processes to ensure data accuracy and real time updates, which addresses currency directly. Currency is the element most records on this index omit entirely and it is credited here. The licensing question is genuinely lighter for granted patent documents than for case law or clinical records, since patent specifications are published by offices as a condition of the grant, and the vendor never says so or states the basis on which it obtained and redistributes them. Also absent: no jurisdictional breakdown of which patent offices are covered, no historical date range, no update lag figure despite currency being claimed, and no statement on whether non patent literature is included, which is a material boundary for prior art and invalidity work.
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.
Not addressed, and applicable in a form specific to this category rather than a scope fact. The patent analogue of a currency check is legal status: whether a patent is in force, expired, lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees, subject to a terminal disclaimer, amended in reexamination, or invalidated in inter partes review or litigation. That status determines whether an infringement or invalidity analysis is worth anything, and it changes constantly. Nothing published states whether the platform surfaces legal status, tracks post grant proceedings, or would flag that a patent in a portfolio analysis has been invalidated. The vendor addresses data accuracy and real time updates for the corpus generally without stating that legal status is part of it. Checked the product pages, the infringement analysis material, the security page and the blog library on 29 Aug 2026.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The vendor describes refusal or abstention behaviour in public materials.
Documented, and only the second record in the pull to reach this value after Descrybe. The vendor publishes multiple named safeguards against hallucinations: citations attached to outputs, auditing of sources for relevance, and colour coded confidence indicators showing relevance. The colour coding is the substantive element, because it surfaces the system's own uncertainty at the point the user reads the result rather than presenting every output with equal apparent authority, which is the failure mode that makes a confidently wrong answer dangerous. The High, Medium and Low infringement risk scoring works the same way at portfolio level, presenting a graded signal rather than a verdict. Recorded as documented rather than documented and demonstrable because nothing published defines what the confidence bands mean, what threshold separates them, what a low confidence output should prompt a user to do, or whether the system will decline to produce a chart at all where evidence is absent.
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.
None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction, fabricated citation and patent terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026, and no named docket database or court record tracker was searched. Recorded as a statement about what this search found, not as a clearance. The exposure shape in this category differs from a research product: the analogous failure is an invalidity contention citing prior art that does not disclose what the chart claims, or a claim chart mapping product evidence to a limitation it does not meet, both of which would surface in litigation rather than as a fabricated case citation. Flagged as worth a proper docket search on a later pass given the platform's stated penetration among Am Law 100 IP practices.
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.
Recorded at generic reference, and the value name understates this record, which the note exists to correct. The vendor publishes practitioner facing material naming specific authorities rather than gesturing at ethics: USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 CFR, Model Rule 1.6 on attorney confidentiality, 35 U.S.C. section 102 on prior disclosure bars, and duty of competence obligations under state bar rules. It sets those against named technical threat vectors including cross matter data leakage, model training on confidential inputs, vendor employee access to stored work product and inadequate breach notification, and states why the stakes differ in patent practice, since exposure of an unpublished application can permanently destroy patent rights rather than merely creating a compliance issue. This is the most specific engagement with professional rules located in the pull, ahead of ProPlaintiff's ABA Model Rules reference. It is recorded at this value because the material is market education published in a blog library rather than a product commitment, no jurisdiction specific ethics opinion is analysed, and nothing binds the vendor to any of it.
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.
Savings claims only, denominated unusually precisely. Published: 80 percent reduction in project time, more than $30,000 saved per claim chart, and up to 15 hours recovered per patent application. The per claim chart figure is the notable one because it is denominated in dollars against a discrete deliverable rather than as a percentage, which makes it the most concrete savings claim in the pull, and it carries no baseline, methodology or sample. Nothing appears on the client's side of the equation: no position on billing for AI assisted claim charting or drafting, no guidance on how a firm should record machine assisted time on an invoice, and no exportable record showing what portion of a chart or an application was machine generated. The omission is pointed for a product sold into Am Law 100 practices where charting is conventionally billed by the hour.
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.
Not addressed, and this is the strongest open publication on the index to receive that value, which the note records so the position is not misread. Published openly with no login: SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 certifications, named penetration testing partners NCC Group and A-LIGN, encryption in transit and at rest, tenant segregation, least privilege access, a stated 90 day retention with deletion, and 24/7 monitoring. A firm can cite all of that immediately. What is missing is everything that makes a pack forwardable and complete: no subprocessor list, no named model provider, no data processing agreement, no certificate dates or certifying bodies, and no trust centre or request route to the underlying reports. A firm can repeat strong claims and cannot obtain a single document behind them. Compare EvenUp, DigitalOwl, Tavrn and Legalyze at on request, each of which publishes less and offers a route or an executable instrument.
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.
Partial record, and the output format is unusually well suited to the question. A claim chart is by construction a disclosure artifact: it maps each claim limitation to the specific product evidence said to meet it, element by element, so an opposing party or a court can test every mapping individually, and the vendor states charts are citation backed with sources audited for relevance. Colour coded confidence indicators travel with the output, which means a reader can see where the system itself was less certain, and that is closer to a machine generated candour signal than anything else on this index produces. The familiar two limbs are absent: nothing indicates that output records which model produced it or on what date, and no human verification record is captured showing that an attorney reviewed and adopted a mapping before it was served or filed. For contentions filed in litigation or an inter partes review, that second gap is the one an opposing party would probe.