T

Tradespace

The base is a system of record: docketing, annuity tracking and maintenance cost modeling, portfolio reporting, workflow routing and electronic signature assignments, none of which needs a model. The AI adds disclosure packages generated from decks, specifications, flow charts and audio, invention reports on use cases, prior art and competitive advantage, and patent drafting acquired with Paragon. It also adds a docketing assistant that summarizes office correspondence and suggests responses, and licensing analysis that finds likely licensees and builds claim charts.

Tradespace says the AI is built into the architecture rather than added on, and a press announcement describes a secure system of record combined with drafting technology.

Asked on its own AI page how it prevents hallucinations, Tradespace states that it uses retrieval augmented generation to limit responses to actual data and provides citations for responses, alongside guardrails intended to keep generated content grounded in fact. The Paragon acquisition announcement describes the drafting technology as offering transparent traceability to source materials so that teams can verify every claim, citation and technical detail.

No accuracy figure, benchmark, evaluation or test set is published. The one number attached to output quality comes from a customer rather than the vendor: the Director of IP at UT Austin is quoted saying the platform gets his team 60 to 70 percent of the way there, the equivalent of a first draft. That figure is a testimonial rather than a measurement. The guardrails are described as state of the art without further detail.

Prosecution work runs through senior attorneys in a vetted network, and the platform page names attorney review and workflow approvals as stages. Inside the product, the customer can build no code rules for disclosure routing and patent committee review, which is a configurable approval path a firm sets for itself. The docketing assistant is described as capturing office and counsel correspondence, summarizing it, creating the resulting deadlines and suggesting responses, so the system generates docket deadlines on matters where a missed date can be malpractice, and nothing published states whether a human confirms a created deadline before it enters the docket.

No published material states what any module completes without review, where the checkpoint sits for a customer using the software without the attorney network, or what happens when the system is uncertain. No agreement of any kind is published, so no review obligation appears in any document.

Home page logos include Georgia Tech, the University of Texas at Austin, the FDA, Enveda Biosciences, Unity, UNT Health and Raytheon. The security page adds Northrop Grumman, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, and says the DoD and DOE were founding customers. Two figures attach to named customers. UNC Charlotte is described as clearing a three year technology backlog and posting 100 new case submissions in a few months.

Chun Kuo, Director of Intellectual Property at UT Austin, says the platform gets his team 60 to 70 percent of the way there and that without it he would need budget for more staff. Video case studies exist for Woodward and UNC Charlotte. A company announcement cites more than 440,000 patents managed for over 80 organizations, including 75 percent of top US research universities. Nothing is dated, and no figure carries a method or measurement basis.

A hub and spoke design gives each customer account a separate model instance, and Tradespace says no data ever moves from a spoke model to the hub or another spoke. It addresses novelty as well as secrecy: uploaded data is not treated as a public disclosure and cannot be discovered by a third party. Training is opt in, off by default and only on explicit request. Model handling is disclosed, with Azure OpenAI Service named and Microsoft's data protection addendum linked.

Nothing says how long disclosures, drafts or office correspondence are kept or what happens when a customer leaves. Privilege and work product are not mentioned, although the platform is sold to general counsel, chief legal officers and law firms. There is no published agreement, privacy policy or data processing addendum to hold any of these commitments.

Nothing published addresses professional responsibility. The home page, platform overview, Create, Manage, Enterprise AI and Security and Privacy pages, the counsel network page and the footer carry no statement that output is not legal advice, nothing on who may use the platform or under what supervision, no reference to verification duties and no jurisdiction statement. There are no terms of service or privacy policy where such a statement could sit.

Tradespace markets a full service patent practice combining software with patent attorneys from a network of outside firms. Nothing says who the client is, whether an attorney client relationship arises with Tradespace or only with the network firm, how conflicts are cleared across firms serving competing portfolios, or who bears the duty of candor on a filing the platform helped draft.

No governance material is published on the home page, platform overview, Create, Manage, Enterprise AI and Security and Privacy pages or in the footer. There is no responsible AI page, framework or set of principles, no person or function accountable for model behavior, no account of what is tested before a model or module change ships, and no certification such as ISO 42001. The closest statement is a claim that the AI has state of the art guardrails to keep generated content grounded in fact, which names no guardrail and describes no testing.

SOC 2 Type 2 through Vanta is an information security attestation, not AI governance. Nothing addresses uneven output, though the disclosure module scores inventions and the licensing module ranks assets, and both shape which inventions get filed and which patents get licensed.

Tradespace publishes AES 256 encryption of all data at rest; single sign on through Okta, Microsoft and Google, with others on request; SOC 2 Type 2 maintained through Vanta with a linked trust center; hosting on Microsoft Azure with all servers in the US Northern Virginia region; and a dedicated model instance for each account. No retention period or deletion practice is stated for any data. No subprocessor list exists; Microsoft is identifiable as the cloud and model route and no other processor is named.

No incident or breach notification practice is published. Tradespace publishes no terms of service, privacy policy or data processing addendum, the documents where retention, subprocessors and breach notice usually sit.

Nothing published says who bears the loss when output is wrong, because no agreement of any kind is published. The footer has no legal section: no terms of service, privacy policy, acceptable use policy or data processing addendum. No liability cap, indemnity, warranty, service level or insurance position is published. The one commercial promise is about satisfaction, not liability: on a first filing, if the customer is not happy, Tradespace will not file and the materials are the customer's regardless. The platform holds unfiled invention disclosures for defense contractors, federal agencies and research universities.

The named connections point at the systems inventors use rather than those lawyers use. Tradespace names Slack, Gmail and Notion as sources it mines for ideas, and describes capture from pull requests, call recordings, schematics and design documents. For enterprises, the platform states support for integrations with CRM, CLM, ERP and other IP systems through APIs and connectors, with secure two way data exchange, naming the direction of flow.

The Manage module describes integrations with annuity providers and with patent offices that capture maintenance events, deadlines and correspondence automatically. Single sign on runs through Okta, Microsoft and Google. No connector list, named IP management or docketing system, API reference or developer documentation is published.

Each customer account gets a dedicated model instance in a hub and spoke design, with no data moving between instances, and Tradespace ties private instances to avoiding public disclosure, the specific legal risk in patent work. Hosting is Microsoft Azure, with all servers stated to be in the US Northern Virginia region. There is no choice of location. No other region, European option, on premises or customer cloud deployment is offered, so a customer with residency obligations outside the United States has no published path.

Nothing separates processing location from storage. Customers include research universities and multinationals filing in Europe and Asia.

Tradespace says it works with Vanta to maintain SOC 2 Type 2 compliance and links directly to a trust center, a route to controls rather than a badge. Security is described in specifics elsewhere: AES 256 at rest, named single sign on providers and a stated server region. The company says it meets these standards for clients including Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.

No auditor is named; Vanta automates compliance and is not the auditor. No report date, coverage period, scope or trust services criteria are published, and the access level for the report is not stated. No penetration testing program is described.

The provider is named and the models are not. Asked which models it uses, Tradespace describes a model agnostic approach and says that by default it uses Microsoft Azure to access OpenAI Services, linking to Microsoft's published data privacy terms for that service. That tells a reader whose infrastructure and model family sit underneath and points at the applicable data protection terms. Inference runs on Azure with servers in the US Northern Virginia region, and the hub and spoke design means the instance is dedicated rather than shared.

No model or version is named, the model agnostic claim comes with no list of alternatives, and there is no commitment to notify customers when the model or provider changes, which matters because the architecture is built to make swapping models easy.

The charging model is stated with no number attached. Prosecution is sold for a flat fee, with the vendor saying the customer knows the cost before work begins, and the pitch is framed against hourly outside counsel, law firm markups and paying hundreds an hour for correspondence handling. There is a concrete free offer: Tradespace prepares a full first application at no cost and, if the customer is not happy, will not file, with the materials theirs regardless.

An ROI calculator lets a customer model returns on its own portfolio. No figure, tier, seat price, subscription rate or unit is published for the software, and nothing says how the platform license relates to the flat prosecution fee or whether one can be bought without the other. The only route to a price is a demo request.

Six buyer roles have their own pages: IP leaders, tech transfer leaders, general counsel, chief legal officers, R&D leaders and corporate development. Five industries have pages: corporations, startups, universities, government and law firms, and four use cases are documented separately. The customer list spans a federal agency, defense primes, research universities and startups. Law firms appear as buyers alongside in house teams, although the product is also marketed as an alternative to outside counsel.

No jurisdiction is stated, so nothing says whether the drafting and docketing modules handle European or international filings or only US practice, with a single US hosting region. No portfolio size is given, and trademarks and copyright are absent throughout without being excluded.