&AI

What do they actually do

&AI is a web-based workspace for patent litigators. It combines searchable prior‑art sources, document management, editable templates, and an AI assistant (“Andy”) that helps generate litigation work product such as claim charts and draft documents. The company positions outputs as grounded in cited source material and offers both a public‑only mode and enterprise features for confidential matters https://www.tryandai.com/ https://www.tryandai.com/blog/public-access-announcement.

A typical workflow is: create a project (with uploads in Pro/Enterprise or public‑only mode in Core), run prior‑art/product searches across patents, non‑patent literature, and product data, generate element‑by‑element claim or evidence‑of‑use charts and draft work product, review/edit in a collaborative editor, then export to Word/PowerPoint/Excel. Teams manage access with role‑based controls and SSO; Enterprise buyers can request single‑tenant or self‑hosted models and additional security controls https://www.tryandai.com/ https://www.tryandai.com/pricing.

Pricing is a credit‑based SaaS model with tiered seats (Core at $375/month per user, Pro at $625/month per user). Credits are included, and actions consume credits. The company states it does not train models on customer inputs and supports zero‑data‑retention options; customers can use public‑only mode to avoid storing confidential material https://www.tryandai.com/pricing https://www.tryandai.com/.

Who are their target customer(s)

• Patent‑litigation partners at mid‑to‑large law firms (including Am Law 100).: They need fast, defensible claim charts and draft litigation materials for filings and pitches, but producing and supervising this work across teams is manual and slow https://www.tryandai.com/blog/public-access-announcement.
• Associates and paralegals on litigation teams.: They spend many hours on prior‑art searches, extracting citations, and building element‑by‑element charts; the work is repetitive, error‑prone, and diverts time from higher‑value analysis https://www.tryandai.com/ https://www.tryandai.com/pricing.
• In‑house IP counsel at product companies.: They must quickly assess infringement/invalidity risk under tight budgets and strict confidentiality, requiring faster analysis tools with strong data controls or public‑only workflows https://www.tryandai.com/pricing https://www.tryandai.com/blog/public-access-announcement.
• Litigation‑support / IT managers at law firms.: They need secure storage, role‑based access, SSO, and deployment options (single‑tenant or self‑hosted) to meet compliance without exposing client secrets https://www.tryandai.com/pricing.
• Patent‑portfolio managers and prosecution attorneys (near‑term expansion).: They want portfolio‑level searches, novelty checks, and automated drafting for office‑action responses and monetization decisions, but current workflows require multiple tools and heavy manual review https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/ai-2 https://tryandai.org/.

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Leverage trusted introductions for short, NDA’d pilots with patent‑litigation partners at target firms, producing real charts/drafts they can evaluate; convert to paid Pro seats by crediting pilot usage and securing references if quality meets firm standards https://www.tryandai.com/blog/public-access-announcement.
• First 50: Expand through internal champions via on‑site/virtual trainings and CLEs that upskill associates/paralegals, while giving IT clear security and deployment documentation to ease procurement https://www.tryandai.com/pricing.
• First 100: Stand up an SDR motion targeting mid‑to‑large firms and in‑house IP teams using short case studies, and partner with litigation‑support vendors; offer concise enterprise terms, SOC/SSO docs, and single‑tenant/self‑host options to reduce legal/IT friction https://tryandai.org/.

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

The broader ceiling sits within legal tech (~$26.7B in 2024) and, more specifically, IP‑management software (one estimate ~$12B in 2025), which &AI could tap as it expands beyond litigation into prosecution and portfolio workflows https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/legal-technology-market-report https://www.researchnester.com/reports/intellectual-property-management-software-market/6724.

Bottom-up calculation:

Using 3,608 firms active in U.S. patent litigation and &AI’s seat prices ($4,500–$7,500 per user per year), adoption scenarios range from ~$3.75M ARR (5 Pro seats at 100 top firms) to ~$81M ARR (5 Core seats at all 3,608 firms), with a focused 500‑firm push at 10 Pro seats yielding ~$37.5M ARR https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/01/31/rising-top-post-pandemic-ip-world-look-active-patent-litigators-latest-district-court-patent-litigation-data/ https://www.tryandai.com/pricing.

Assumptions:

• Seat counts per firm (5–10) reflect small team deployments before firm‑wide rollouts.
• Calculations focus on law firms and exclude corporate IP teams and add‑on enterprise fees.
• Mix of Core vs. Pro seats aligns with published pricing and conservative adoption by role.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• PatSeer: Patent‑research platform with semantic/“one‑click” claim‑charting and collaboration; overlaps on automated claim mapping and broad search coverage, but is positioned as a wider IP analytics suite rather than a litigation‑first workspace https://patseer.com/webinar-smarter-patent-analysis-with-claim-charts/ https://patseer.com/features-patent-search-analysis-software/.
• Patsnap: Enterprise IP intelligence with AI agents, novelty/FTO tools, and automated claim‑level analysis; overlaps on prior‑art search and claim mapping, but targets full‑stack IP analytics/innovation vs. litigation‑focused editing/workflow https://www.patsnap.com/ https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/ai-patent-search-tools-fto-analysis-2025/.
• Patlytics: AI‑first patent intelligence with automated invalidity/infringement claim charts and lifecycle analytics; directly overlaps on chart generation and evidence extraction for litigation https://www.patlytics.ai/claim-charts.
• Pearl (Unified Patents): Specialized invalidity/claim‑charting engine producing evidence‑grade invalidity charts and exports; narrower in scope (invalidity/quality) compared with &AI’s broader workspace + drafting agent https://www.unifiedpatents.com/pearl.
• Solve Intelligence: Tooling to automate prior‑art search, draft patent documents, and produce exportable claim charts/evidence tables; overlaps on turning search results into litigation‑grade charts/drafts with AI summaries https://www.solveintelligence.com/blog/post/prior-art-search-ai-tools.