LexDana
Sign inRequest access
The cite-backed semantic memory layer for high-stakes patent disputes

Every patent dispute has a history.
We have all of it.

LexDana tracks how claim meaning and legal positions evolve across prosecution, PTAB, ITC, district court, and the Federal Circuit — converting millions of pages of records into structured, doctrine-linked positions you can query, analyze, and trust.

5 free prompts a day, no credit card.Or join the alpha access list →
Or try one of these
Before a Markman briefClaim meaning · Alpha
Every scope-narrowing statement in prosecution for claim 1 — with cites.
Tracking PTAB activityAnalytics · Live
Most active firms in IPRs against pharma patents, last 3 years.
Evaluating an Orange Book drugLife sciences · Soon
For Drug X, every live claim and where the patentee gave up scope.
The Problem

The record exists. The memory doesn’t.

Patent disputes unfold across prosecution, PTAB, ITC, district court, and appeal. Every new team reconstructs the record from scratch — at the cost of time, accuracy, and leverage.

Missed evidence
$10M+
Trial exposure
A scope-narrowing statement sits buried in the prosecution history. Nobody catches it before trial — the claim shrinks on the stand and damages collapse.
Missed contradiction
$50M+
Settlement leverage lost
Opposing counsel argued one thing at the PTAB and the opposite at the district court. The inconsistency exists in the record — but nobody pulls it together in time. The settlement comes in low.
Repeated reconstruction
$100–500K
Wasted per matter
Every new team rebuilds the same record from scratch — thousands of pages of prosecution, IPRs, and Markman orders re-read for each new case.
The Work

What attorneys ask LexDana.

Every question, cite-anchored to the page and line. From the prosecution record to judge tendencies to family-wide portfolio analysis.

Claim constructionIn alpha

Reconstruct what the patentee already said.

Every position, narrowing, and disclaimer across prosecution and the PTAB record — anchored to the page and line.

Before a Markman brief
“Did the patentee narrow ‘data store’ during prosecution in a way that constrains how broadly we can read it today?”
See claim construction examples
AnalyticsLive

Map the patent landscape.

Filing trends, win rates, judge patterns, expert declarants — across every forum we cover today.

Sizing up the playing field
“Which companies have filed the most IPRs against pharma patents in the last three years?”
See analytics examples
Life sciencesComing soon

Evaluate Orange Book exposure.

Orange Book joins the corpus next. ANDA dockets, branded vs. generic positions, and family-wide reconstruction.

Evaluating an Orange Book family
“For Drug Y, every live claim and where the patentee already gave up scope a generic could exploit.”
Join the waitlist
The whole story of one patent
Salix Pharmaceuticals v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals · U.S. 8,309,569

One matter. Three venues.
Fifteen years. Reconstructed in minutes.

Rifaximin / Xifaxan. Hatch-Waxman across prosecution, district court, and the Federal Circuit — cite-anchored from filing to mandate.

PROSECUTION DISTRICT COURT CAFC 2009 2012 2017 2020 2023 2026 Amendment · "shape" narrowed Markman · construction adopted Affirmance · disclaimer relied on
3
Claim elements
20
Positions
24
Events
4
Matters
3
Venues
103
Docket entries
Open the live demo at app.lexdana.ai →
Office Action Response · Aug 12, 2011p. 21, ll. 18–25
Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art of Smith fails to disclose a pharmaceutical composition of rifaximin in the β polymorph form, and any teaching toward the amorphous form is expressly distinguished here.
The Substrate

Trust the answer.
Verify the cite.

16 years of patent coverage. Used across the patent bar.

LexDana runs on the Patexia corpus — the same data that’s powered the rankings firms have relied on for over a decade to track ANDA, PTAB, and ITC activity.

Browse the rankings hub →

  • Cite-anchored to the page and line.Every answer carries a real document coordinate — Rule 11 defensible.
  • No AI-drafted legal arguments.LexDana surfaces what was actually said and ruled. It doesn’t predict outcomes or generate legal conclusions.
  • Audit-grade methodology.Same standards as the Patexia rankings, applied to every cite the platform returns.
Early access

Built for the matter you’re working on now.

We’re rolling out V1 alpha access in batches — Hatch-Waxman partners, in-house IP, and IP M&A diligence teams first. Tell us what you’d ask of it.