T
Tangibly
Tangibly is a trade secret management platform from Tangibly, Inc. for corporate legal and IP teams, law firms and the HR, R&D and security teams that handle confidential information. Its AI discovery analyzes a company's patents and internal documents to surface likely trade secrets, groups them into categories and links each result back to its source for review. The platform keeps a registry of trade secret assets with owners, review cycles and classifications, manages access and acknowledgments, and keeps timestamped records to support arguments about reasonable measures in a dispute.
Alongside the platform, Tangibly sells consulting, case validation and damages assessments for trade secret disputes, and nonrecourse litigation funding through a partnership with SIM IP; the platform can be licensed on its own. Pricing is not published.
Tangibly, 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 Tangibly
Other products that do the same kind of work as Tangibly, and what each one does.
- TTradespaceTradespace is an intellectual property management platform covering the patent lifecycle from invention capture to licensing.
- BBrandShieldBrandShield is a brand protection and external cybersecurity platform from Brandshield Ltd. of Herzliya, Israel. It finds and removes online threats aimed at a company's brand, its executives and its customers.
- AAlt LegalAlt Legal is trademark docketing software for IP practices. It connects to more than 180 intellectual property offices, pulls matter data from official filings, calculates due dates, and keeps a global portfolio in sync without manual entry.
- PPowerPatentPowerPatent is generative AI drafting software for patent applications, sold to patent attorneys, agents and the inventors who work with them.
- TTriangle IPTriangle IP is a patent pipeline and prosecution analytics platform from Triangle IP, Inc., a Colorado company.
- DDerwent Patent SearchDerwent Patent Search, formerly Derwent Innovation, is Clarivate's patent research platform for prior art, patentability, freedom to operate and invalidity searches.
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 drive discovery inside a governance platform that would still work without them. Tangibly's AI analyzes patents and internal documents to surface likely trade secrets, groups them and links each result to its source. The registry, ownership and review cycles, access management, acknowledgments, partner agreement tracking, training and audit records are governance workflow a team could run without the models.
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.
Accuracy is asserted, not measured. Discovery results point back to the source documents so a team can check what was flagged and why, but no detection rate, error rate or test is published. Case validation estimates the likelihood of success in a dispute, and nothing published shows how well those predictions have performed.
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.
Review is asserted, and little mechanism is described. The platform page says AI discovery results are linked to source material so teams can validate what is sensitive and why. No review workflow, approval step, threshold or limit on how AI output may be used is described.
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 and endorsements are published, without measured results. The site quotes Mike Renaud, Chair of Mintz's Intellectual Property Division, on the firm's work with Tangibly, and Davis Fundi Ireri, R&D Manager at Sentara Group, on centralizing proprietary innovations, and features an Oxa case study. A quote on case validation is attributed to 'Ray Miller, Partner' with no firm named. Investor quotes from SIM IP and Wipro Ventures are endorsements, not customer evidence. The claim of faster trade secret discovery carries no basis.
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 published agreement has a real confidentiality article, and it is silent on AI. Customer Content is treated as the customer's confidential information, to be used only to perform the agreement, with notice before any legal demand and return or destruction on request. Case validation work is done under NDA where appropriate. Which model providers, if any, process customer content is not stated, and privilege is not addressed.
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.
A short disclaimer sits against marketing that reads like advice. The Master Subscription Agreement says Tangibly is not engaged in providing legal advice, and the case validation FAQ says it complements counsel rather than replacing attorneys. The consulting service, however, is marketed as expert legal guidance, and case validation offers general counsel and CEOs an estimate of their likelihood of success. Nothing addresses who reviews those assessments or the supervision duties of the lawyers who rely on them.
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 AI governance position, accountable owner or testing before release is published, and nothing reports how discovery or outcome predictions perform across industries, document types or case profiles. Checks covered the site and both legal documents.
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.
Security controls are published, and retention, subprocessors and incidents are not. The security page describes AWS hosting, encryption in transit and at rest with keys in AWS Key Management Service, optional multifactor authentication and security training, and the platform offers SSO and audit logs. No subprocessor list, retention period for uploaded documents or incident notification commitment 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.
Liability is handled through a standard limitation clause. The Master Subscription Agreement caps each party's liability at the fees paid in the prior twelve months, or $1,000 if none, and excludes indirect damages. It warrants that the service performs substantially as documented, and indemnifies the customer against US patent, trademark and copyright claims and claims that Tangibly misappropriated trade secrets in building the service. Nothing addresses discovery results or case assessments that prove wrong.
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.
Integrations appear as logos, not documentation. The trade secret platform page shows a row of integration logos, one of them Microsoft Azure, and answers the question of which integrations are supported by inviting buyers to meet its experts. What connects, in which direction and with what configuration is not described.
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 hosting and tenant isolation are stated, and no storage region is. The security page says the platform runs on Amazon Web Services, with each customer's data kept separate through tenant isolation. The Master Subscription Agreement notes only that content may leave the United States if a user accesses it from abroad. No region choice or other deployment option is described.
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 scope is claimed, without a report route. The security page says Tangibly is SOC 2 Type II compliant for the Security and Confidentiality criteria, and that the platform undergoes routine internal assessments and independent audits by outside firms. No auditor, report date or way to obtain the report is published, and there is a security disclosure form for reporting vulnerabilities.
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.
Proprietary AI is claimed without saying what sits underneath. Case validation is described as using proprietary AI, and discovery as AI built for the purpose; no model, model provider, hosting location for inference or change notification 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 unit and structure of charging are in the published agreement, and no figure is. The subscription agreement sets a per user charge by default, annual billing in advance, a fee lock for the first term and a cap on renewal increases, as recorded in the pricing structure. No price, tier or minimum appears anywhere, and every route to a figure is a conversation with the team.
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.
A single practice area is covered and its buyers are named, without limits. The site is built around trade secrets, from identification and governance of reasonable measures to partner sharing and dispute preparation. It addresses corporate legal and IP teams, operational teams such as R&D, and law firms, with industry material on chemicals, medical devices and semiconductors. The jurisdictions and dispute types it does and does not support are not stated.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for Tangibly, 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.
-
tangibly.com/terms-of-service2 signals
Client Data in Training, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Nov 9, 2026
-
tangibly.com/privacy-policy1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 22, 2026
-
tangibly.com/security1 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 22, 2026
No published figure
- Tangibly charges per user unless your order form says otherwise.
- Subscriptions are billed annually in advance and renew each year.
- Renewal price rises are capped at 7% unless Tangibly gives 30 days' notice of different pricing.
- No price is published; a figure needs a conversation with the team.
- Consulting, onboarding and training are priced separately.
The Master Subscription Agreement charges for the hosted service by the number of users unless an order form says otherwise, and Tangibly may true up the count. Billing is annual in advance unless the order form says otherwise, with fees fixed for the initial term. Renewals run automatically a year at a time, with increases of up to 7% over the prior term unless Tangibly notifies different pricing 30 days ahead, and never lower than the prior term. Professional services are priced separately. No rate is given for anything.
Implementation: Training, consulting, onboarding and implementation are Professional Services billed under a separate statement of work; no rate is published. The platform FAQ says it can be used without consulting services.
Confidentiality and data terms: No Business Associate Agreement is offered or referred to on the site, and HIPAA is not mentioned. The platform handles trade secrets and confidential business information rather than health data.
Note: No figure is published at any level, and the agreement treats Order Form pricing as Tangibly's confidential information. Fees are nonrefundable except as the agreement provides, late payments accrue 1.5% a month, and promotional or one time pricing renews at list price.
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 Master Subscription Agreement and the Privacy Policy are published and neither says whether customer content is used to train Tangibly's models. The agreement grants Tangibly a right to use Customer Metadata, which it defines to exclude the content itself, to operate, improve and develop the service; that improvement right never names training. No page addresses training either way.
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.
The Privacy Policy keeps personal data as long as necessary to deliver the service and meet legal and business needs, with no period stated. The Master Subscription Agreement makes stored content available for retrieval for 30 days after an order ends and requires return or destruction of confidential information on request, subject to backups kept under normal policy.
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.
Access is set in Tangibly's own permission model, maintained by the customer's administrators. Permissions by role limit users to what their responsibilities require, access to individual sensitive assets is managed, and acknowledgments are captured when confidential information is shared. Tenant isolation separates each customer's data. Nothing describes inheriting permissions from a document management system.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
Prompt prior notice of any subpoena, order, investigative demand or regulatory request for customer content is committed in the Master Subscription Agreement, where legally permitted. Tangibly adds reasonable assistance, at the customer's expense, if the customer seeks protection. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.
Case validation is said to use AI trained on trusted legal data and to compare a dispute with thousands of relevant sources, and those sources are not identified. The site's main pages were checked on 22 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.
Nothing addresses whether authority relied on in case assessments is checked for later history, as of 22 September 2026.
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.
Nothing describes what discovery or case validation does when the material does not support a conclusion. The main site pages were reviewed for this on 22 September 2026.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database kept by Damien Charlotin holds no entry naming Tangibly as the tool used.
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 material engages with lawyers' professional or ethical obligations or names any ethics opinion. The site pages, the agreement and the Privacy Policy were checked on 22 September 2026.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The platform is a company's own trade secret registry and governance system, bought by its own legal and IP staff for internal work, so it does not sit between a lawyer and a billed client. Law firms appear as users of the separate case validation assessments, and nothing addresses how that work is billed.
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.
Only AWS is named, as host, on the security page. The agreement, the Privacy Policy and the site pages carry no subprocessor or model provider list and no disclosure material for clients.
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.
The platform keeps timestamped records of trade secret assets, access and controls to support a party's own case, but nothing addresses recording or disclosing AI use in material put before a court. This reflects the site as read on 22 September 2026.