Prove you understand the field.
In the time it takes to make coffee.
A grant-template-ready state-of-the-art generator across 295M+ patents, papers, and clinical trials.
Grant proposals, regulatory filings, academic papers, and technical due diligence reports all share one requirement: a state-of-the-art section that proves you understand the field. Built well, it takes weeks of literature review. Kwintely produces it from one query, comprehensive, cited, and structured for the format you need.
Grant deadline is Friday. Your team has the methodology section nailed. The state-of-the-art section is still a stub, three placeholder paragraphs and 'TODO: cite recent work.' Two of you are about to spend the next two days on it. Or you spend 90 seconds on it and the next two days on the parts of the proposal that actually win the grant.
Before Kwintely vs With Kwintely
Teams already using Kwintely for State of the Art
From description to result in three steps
Define the technology scope
Describe the field in plain language. Your grant abstract or research question is enough.
Comprehensive literature scan
295M+ documents searched, patents, papers, clinical trials, clustered automatically by sub-topic.
Receive structured citation set
Sub-topic-clustered, fully cited, exportable to grant template format. Typical turnaround: under 90 seconds.
Four artifacts, one search
BibTeX export
For LaTeX manuscripts and academic citation managers.
Word DOCX
Drop directly into Horizon Europe, NIH, BMBF, ERC grant templates.
Sub-topic-clustered citations
Narrative skeleton, sub-fields auto-grouped, with citation counts and date ranges.
Date-range filter
Recent-only or comprehensive, your call. Re-run any time the field moves.
What teams ask before they sign.
Can I export the citations into my grant template format?
Yes, BibTeX and Word-footnote-ready exports are supported. The output is structured to drop directly into the standard grant proposal templates (Horizon Europe, NIH, BMBF, ERC) and into LaTeX bibliographies for academic papers.
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.
Generate your first state-of-the-art section, before Friday's grant deadline.
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 State of the Art in action.
Generate your first state-of-the-art section, before Friday's grant deadline.