Does your technology infringe?
Find out before you invest.
An AI search engine that runs counsel-grade FTO over 295M+ patents, papers, and clinical trials in 90 seconds.
Freedom to Operate analysis determines whether a technology can be commercialised without infringing valid patent claims. Traditional FTO relies on keyword searches that miss filings in other languages, other IPC classes, and other disciplines. Kwintely finds what keywords miss ... before your legal team finds out the hard way.
It's Tuesday. Your CEO walks in: 'Board on Friday wants sign-off on FTO before we lock the IND.' You call counsel. The quote is €15–25K and three weeks. The board meeting is in four days.
Before Kwintely vs With Kwintely
Teams already using Kwintely for Freedom to Operate
From description to result in three steps
Describe your technology
Paste a paragraph, an abstract, a technical specification, or a claim draft. Plain language. No operators.
Context search across 295M+ documents
Our AI maps your description against the global patent corpus ... cross-language, cross-discipline, cross-IPC. No synonym lists required.
Receive a ranked FTO result
Blocking patents sorted by relevance. Each result includes patent number, assignee, claim summary, and risk classification.
Four artifacts, one search
Counsel-ready PDF
Risk-tiered patent list, ranked by similarity, with claim summaries and citations, drop into your counsel review.
Spreadsheet export
CSV with patent number, assignee, jurisdiction, similarity score, and risk classification.
Shareable live link
Same query, current data, no extra cost. Forward to counsel or product team.
Saved query for re-runs
Re-run before every market entry. Get notified when new filings change the answer.
What teams ask before they sign.
Will my counsel accept Kwintely as part of an FTO?
Most counsel use Kwintely as the front end of an FTO. They keep ownership of the legal opinion. Kwintely produces the structured search output, ranked, cited, exportable, that counsel would otherwise spend associate time generating. Several patent firms in our network use Kwintely directly for client work.
Is the output ready for counsel review?
Every result includes the source document, publication date, similarity score, and the relevant passage quoted verbatim. The output is structured the way an associate-led search would be: ranked, cited, exportable. The AI is a mapping engine; the documents it surfaces are real. Counsel still makes the legal call; Kwintely does the search and citation prep.
How does this fit with my existing patent firm?
Most teams run Kwintely before engaging counsel, to scope the work and narrow the candidate set, then walk into the review with the search prep already done. Counsel spends their hours on judgement and the legal opinion, not on assembling the candidate list.
What about pricing and lock-in?
Three ways to work with Kwintely: the self-serve SaaS platform, scoped research-service projects where our team runs the analysis for you, or the API and MCP data layer for your own tools. Full output runs on a paid plan, the free tier is for trying basic searches, not complete deliverables. See the pricing page for current plans and terms.
Run the experiment, not the procurement.
Bring the technology you'd already pay counsel to clear. Run it through Kwintely first. Counsel still owns the opinion.
Counsel still signs off
Kwintely produces the structured search; your firm keeps ownership of the legal opinion. Nothing about your existing relationship has to change.
Run it on a real case
Pick the technology you'd already pay counsel to clear. Compare what Kwintely returns against what your firm would charge for. Decide on the second case, not the first.
No lock-in
Free tier covers the first basic experiment. Full output on paid plans. Fixed monthly fee on the way up. The cost of the test is one search.
See Freedom to Operate in action.
Bring the technology you'd already pay counsel to clear. Run it through Kwintely first. Counsel still owns the opinion.