ClearstoneIP provides Clearstone FTO, a cloud-based platform that replaces spreadsheet-based freedom-to-operate (FTO) assessment with a structured collaborative workflow. Founded in 2014 by patent attorneys Jesse and Gabriel Sukman (Palo Alto, Stanford CodeX connection). AI features include claim chart auto-generation, specification support extraction, and design-around analysis. Positioned as ‘the only workflow technology specifically built for FTO management.’ Named customers: Michael Best law firm (PR Newswire Oct 2024) and Cytiva (formerly GE Healthcare Life Sciences — case study shows platform as ‘integral component in Cytiva go-to-market strategy’). CEO reported ‘usage quadrupled in 2020’ (InQuartik blog). Available on Reynen Court Solutions Store (enterprise legal tech deployment) and SoftwareOne marketplace. Featured in ALM Legal Tech News (Feb 2022), IPWatchdog webinar (Jan 2026), Patent Lawyer Magazine, IAM Media. Independent first-look review from Patinformatics called Clearstone Innovator ‘a paradigm shifting approach to clearance work.’ Mentioned positively in r/Patents and r/PatentAnalysis. Recently hired Stuart Recher as CCO. Free tier available; enterprise pricing via contact. ~5 employees, 510 LinkedIn followers. Also partnered with InQuartik for deeper FTO workflow integration.
Company Info
- Founded: 2015
- Team size: 1-10 employees
- HQ: United States
- Sector: IP
What We Haven’t Verified
This page was assembled from publicly available information. Feature claims and workflow mappings are based on what the vendor and third-party listings publish — not hands-on testing or practitioner feedback.
Workflows
Based on practitioner evidence, ClearstoneIP is used in these workflows:
What practitioners struggle with
Real frustrations from legal professionals — the problems ClearstoneIP addresses (or should address). Sourced from practitioner reviews, Reddit threads, and case studies.
In-house IP team managing 5,000+ patents across 40 countries tracks renewal deadlines, annuity payments, and maintenance fees in spreadsheets — a missed deadline in one jurisdiction means losing patent protection permanently, and the cost of defensive re-filing (if even possible) dwarfs the renewal fee
Patent attorney conducting a prior art search for a client's invention spends 2-3 days manually searching USPTO, EPO, and non-patent literature databases — reading hundreds of abstracts, mapping claims to prior art references, and still worrying they missed something in a Chinese or Japanese patent that wasn't translated. The search costs the client $5,000-15,000 and the attorney still can't guarantee completeness
Litigation team preparing a patent invalidity defence needs to find prior art that anticipates or renders obvious each claim element — manually building claim charts across dozens of references takes weeks and costs $50-100K in associate time, and missing one key reference could lose the case
In-house IP team asked to evaluate whether a new product infringes competitor patents — evidence-of-use analysis requires manually comparing product features against hundreds of patent claims, which takes weeks of attorney time at $500/hour and still produces incomplete results
Where it fits in your workflow
Community Data
Loading practitioner-sourced data…