co-CEO

# Why We Built Revidence

After more than 15 years leading an IP law firm, I truly believed that technology alone could solve most of the challenges we faced.

For many years, we invested heavily in technology and built solid internal systems. Yet the same inefficiencies continued to surface across matters, teams, and jurisdictions.

Over time, we understood that the issue was not a lack of tools, but how collaboration breaks down across the legal services ecosystem.

In legal procurement, this problem becomes exponential. At that point, it became clear that this was not something to be optimised internally, but something the industry itself was missing.

That is where Revidence began.

## The Problem

Despite operating in a trillion dollar global industry, the way legal services are requested, evaluated, and delivered has barely changed in decades. Emails, spreadsheets, disconnected documents, manual follow ups, and decisions made with limited visibility remain the norm.

The experience is similar to booking a hotel in the 1990s.

You know where you want to go, so you search for a few options. You send emails asking for availability and prices. You wait for replies. You try to compare offers that are not structured in the same way. Once you decide, you manually exchange details, trust that the service will be delivered as promised, and hope the quality meets your expectations.

Everything is manual. Reliability is low. And there is very little transparency about what you are actually buying.

That is still how legal services procurement works today.

## Our Solution

Revidence introduces a new layer of trust to legal services procurement.

For the first time, legal teams can identify recommended providers by service and by jurisdiction based on real case reviews. Not directories. Not rankings built on reputation alone. But feedback grounded in actual work delivered, within a specific context.

This allows legal teams to make better informed decisions, reduce uncertainty, and significantly improve efficiency throughout the procurement process. At the same time, it gives providers a fair and transparent way to demonstrate their expertise and performance over time.

Beyond trust, Revidence brings structure to the way legal services are requested and proposed.

Service requests are created in a clear and standardised format, making it easier for providers to understand the scope and respond. Proposals are submitted in the same workspace, in a comparable structure, allowing legal teams to evaluate options side by side without relying on fragmented emails and documents.

Communication, files, and updates live in one shared environment, from the first request to the closing of a matter. This removes the need for long email threads, reduces friction, and ensures that everyone involved works with the same context and information.

Time is one of the most expensive inefficiencies in legal services. Revidence addresses this by removing friction from procurement and case management, allowing professionals to focus on work that truly requires their expertise.

By offering free access to the platform, Revidence is designed to move the entire industry forward. It saves time for all professionals involved and creates a more direct connection between the right clients and the right providers.

Not by changing how legal work is done, but by giving it the modern infrastructure it deserves.

Revidence is a platform built to modernize legal services procurement, replacing the fragmented email-and-spreadsheet workflow that has dominated the industry for decades. It provides a structured workspace where legal teams can issue requests, compare proposals side by side, and select providers based on verified case reviews rather than reputation alone. The goal is to bring trust, transparency, and efficiency to how legal services are sourced across jurisdictions.

A personal view on the future of IP Collaboration

If you work in a corporate legal team or an in-house IP department, you already have plenty on your plate: managing a global portfolio, keeping up with filings, handling enforcement. But there's one process that quietly eats up more time than it should, and it's not even close to the work you were hired to do. It's creating and managing Requests for Proposal for IP legal services.

Think about how most RFPs actually get done today. Someone drafts a document, emails it around for input, sends it out to a handful of firms, then waits. Proposals come back in different formats. Comparisons happen in spreadsheets. Follow-ups get buried in inboxes. There's no single place where the whole process lives, and if someone asks six months later why a particular firm was selected, good luck piecing that together.

It's not that any single step is broken. It's that the whole workflow is held together with duct tape.

## The visibility question

One of the first friction points is deciding who even sees the RFP. Sometimes you want to cast a wide net. Other times you already know which firms you want to hear from, or you've already picked someone and just need to formalize the instruction. Most of the time, the tooling doesn't care about these distinctions. You end up managing visibility through CC lines and separate email chains, which is about as reliable as it sounds.

## Too many tools, not enough context

The traditional RFP process tends to be painfully sequential. One person drafts, another reviews, then it goes out, then providers ask questions, then you answer them one by one. Context gets lost at every handoff because every handoff happens in a different tool. The draft lives in Word, the discussion lives in email, the supporting documents live in a shared drive somewhere, and the timeline lives in someone's head.

By the time the RFP is actually out the door, half the team isn't sure what the final version said.

## The proposal comparison problem

Here's a frustration anyone who's evaluated RFP responses will recognize: every firm structures their proposal differently. One gives you a detailed cost breakdown, another buries pricing in a narrative paragraph, and a third sends a PDF that looks like it was written for a different RFP entirely.

Trying to compare these side by side is an exercise in creative spreadsheet work. You end up spending almost as much time normalizing the responses as you did writing the RFP in the first place.

## The handoff that loses everything

Even after you've picked a firm, the pain isn't over. Now you need to actually start the work, which means re-sending documents, re-introducing team members, re-explaining context, and hoping nothing important got lost along the way.

All the thinking, discussion, and decision-making that went into the selection process? It lives scattered across inboxes and file versions that nobody will ever look at again. The new matter starts from scratch, as if the RFP never happened.

## It doesn't have to be this way

None of these frustrations are inevitable. They're the result of forcing a structured process through unstructured tools. When the RFP workflow is actually designed as a workflow (with collaboration, standardized responses, and continuity built in) the whole thing gets simpler.

Better process, better proposals, better outcomes. And more time for the work you actually care about.

Between managing a global IP portfolio, keeping up with filings, and handling enforcement issues, corporate legal teams and in-house IP departments already have enough to manage. Yet old-school processes continue to drain time and introduce risk.

Revidence Blog

A personal view on the future of IP Collaboration

By Tiago Reis Nobre • March 2, 2026

Nobody loves the IP workflow

By João Batalha • March 1, 2026