Prior-art search that produces evidence, not just links.
Quote-first patent search over the full USPTO corpus, with budget caps, auditable citations, and an evidence binder your reviewing attorney can actually sign off on. Live today — not a demo.
Evidence packet first, search interface second
The buyer needs to trust the binder: source citations, claim relevance, budget visibility, and a reviewable trail.
A visible proof object with search log, references, and report structure.
Closest references are tied back to the question being searched.
The buyer can see what was run, what it cost, and where each citation came from.
Evidence packet first, search interface second
The buyer needs to trust the binder: source citations, claim relevance, budget visibility, and a reviewable trail.
- Sample binder
- A visible proof object with search log, references, and report structure.
- Claim mapping
- Closest references are tied back to the question being searched.
- Audit trail
- The buyer can see what was run, what it cost, and where each citation came from.
- Attorney review
- The product prepares evidence for review; it does not pretend to be counsel.
- Budget cap
- Queries are scoped before execution, so exploration does not become surprise spend.
- Citation gate
- If a source cannot be verified, it does not belong in the binder.
The current state of prior-art search
- Associates burn billable hours paging through keyword results that miss the killer reference.
- Search vendors charge enterprise prices and still hand you an unstructured pile of PDFs.
- AI tools hallucinate citations — useless the moment a real attorney has to defend the work.
- Every search's cost is a surprise, so nobody runs the follow-up queries they should.
What you get
- Quote-first searches: see the cost ceiling before any query runs — searches from cents, not thousands.
- Evidence binders: every hit tied to source, claim mapping, and a full audit trail — built for the world where 37 CFR 11.18(b) makes YOU liable for every AI-generated assertion you sign.
- Verifiable citations only: every reference links to the actual document. If it can't be verified, it isn't in the binder.
- Your matter data stays yours: no training on client data, ever — in writing.
- Usage-metered billing and direct access to the founding engineer who built and operates the system.
How it works
- 1
Bring one live matter
A patentability, invalidity, or FTO question you're working right now.
- 2
Run governed searches
Scope the query, see the quote, execute within budget. Iterate as fast as you think.
- 3
Walk away with the binder
Structured evidence, citations, and a report ready for attorney review.
First 10 members only. Cancel anytime. Price never increases while you stay.
- Unlimited quote-first searches (fair-use budget included)$500/mo
- Evidence binders with full audit trails$1,950 each
- AI-drafted reports with attorney-reviewable citations + PDF export$200/mo
- BONUS: your first matter run as a complete evidence binder, with the founder$1,950
- BONUS: direct line to the founding engineer — searches tuned to your practice$300/mo
- Total value$2,950+ in month one
- Your price$299/mo — locked for 12 months
The First-Matter Guarantee
Run one real matter through the system in your first month. If the evidence binder isn't good enough to hand to your reviewing attorney, say so and month one is refunded in full. You keep the binder.
See a real evidence binder first — free
We'll send you a complete sample binder generated by the live system on a well-known patent: the searches, the citations, the audit trail, the report. Judge the work product before you spend a dollar.
Send me the sample binderClaim founding access
Tell me about your practice and I'll set you up personally — usually same day.
Skip the pitch. Tell us the live situation: what happens today, where it breaks, and what would prove this belongs in your workflow.
- Current state
- Tools, volume, team, or workflow as it works today.
- Where it breaks
- Missed calls, slow searches, manual rework, risk, or revenue slipping away.
- First useful proof
- The one result that would make you say: yes, keep going.
A straight fit/no-fit read, a small first move, and the evidence we’d use to judge whether it worked.
No client files, passwords, private matter facts, or account access in the first note. Rough context is enough.