Clarivate owns FoundationIP. PracticeLink runs on top of it, so you keep your docketing and add the operations layer. See how the two fit together.
If you're comparing Quartz IP and Clarivate for a law firm, there's a wrinkle worth knowing before you go any further. For a firm, the Clarivate product you're weighing is almost always FoundationIP, its cloud docketing system. And Clarivate owns FoundationIP. PracticeLink, the software we build, runs on top of FoundationIP. So this usually isn't the either/or it looks like.
Both help an IP team manage the work. They just sit at different levels of the stack, and that turns out to be the whole point. Here's the honest version, from the people who build PracticeLink.
What are you actually comparing?
Clarivate is a large data and analytics company. Its business runs across academic research, life sciences, and intellectual property, and the IP side alone spans patent search and analytics, renewals and IP services (the old CPA Global business), and a shelf of IP management systems. For a patent or trademark firm, the piece that matters is FoundationIP, which Clarivate markets as cloud IP practice management for firms of all sizes.
FoundationIP is a docketing system. It holds your dates, your portfolios, your USPTO forms, and your jurisdiction rules, and it's the system of record for all of it. That's real work, and it's what a docketing system is supposed to do.
But PracticeLink isn't another docketing system. It's the IP operations platform that runs the work around the docket: the mail that has to be sorted and routed, the IDS and forms prep, the handoffs between tools, the client reporting. It reads from your docketing system and connects it to the rest of your stack. So the real comparison isn't FoundationIP's features against ours. It's two different layers, and in most firms you want both.
How do they fit together?
They're not the same layer. Here's how they line up.
| FoundationIP (Clarivate) | PracticeLink (Quartz IP) |
| What it is | Cloud docketing and IP management, your system of record | An operations layer that runs on top of your docketing |
| What it handles | Dates, portfolios, USPTO forms, jurisdiction rules, reporting | Mail intake, IDS and forms prep, cross-tool workflow, client portals |
| Built for | Law firms of all sizes | Patent and trademark law firms specifically |
| Your docketing system | This is it | Keeps FoundationIP and connects to it, no migration |
| How they meet | Offers a REST API for integration | Uses that API to sync with FoundationIP through the day |
| The vendor | One product line inside a global data and analytics company | IP operations only, partnership model with operations advisors |
Keep FoundationIP. You already did the hard part.
If your firm runs FoundationIP, you've already centralized the part that's hard to build. Your dockets, your deadlines, and your portfolio data are in one place and tracked. The question isn't whether to replace that. It's whether everything around it runs as well as the docket does.
Most firms don't have a docketing problem. They have an everything-around-docketing problem. Sorting the incoming mail and routing it to the right person. Moving a matter from the inbox to filed across four systems. Keeping the client updated without rebuilding a report by hand. That work sits around the docket, not inside it. A docketing system holds the dates and the case data, and running the operations around them is a different job. Clarivate seems to agree. It even ships a REST API for exactly this, so firms can, in its own words, "share data updates across your systems in near real time." That's where PracticeLink fits.
PracticeLink connects to FoundationIP through that API. It reads your matter data, docket dates, and portfolio information, then adds the operations layer on top: automated mail intake, the office action response workflow, USPTO forms and IDS packages, and branded client reporting. The statutory dates stay in FoundationIP, untouched. PracticeLink runs the work between the mail landing and the response going out, and firms see mail processing speed up by about half and forms prep by nearly as much. No migration, because you're not moving your dockets anywhere. There's setup, like any new system, but it's configuration and connection, not a data migration. Five of the top ten US patent filing firms run PracticeLink this way, alongside the docketing system they already trust.
If you want the longer version of that argument, we made it here: why your docketing system needs an operations layer.
What if you actually want to leave FoundationIP?
Some firms do decide to move off it. Maybe a roadmap shifted after the CPA Global acquisition, maybe the numbers changed at renewal, maybe another docketing system just fits better. If that's you, here's the honest part: switching docketing systems is one of the most disruptive things an IP practice can do to itself, and it's rarely worth doing on impulse.
PracticeLink helps either way, because it isn't tied to FoundationIP. It's the same operations layer whether you stay on FoundationIP or move to CPi, Inprotech, or something else. Your dashboards, reporting, forms, and client portals live in that operations layer, so a change underneath is a reconnection, not a rebuild. That's a different kind of insurance than betting on the "right" vendor. There isn't an acquisition-proof vendor. There's an operation built so the next ownership change is someone else's headache, not yours.
One product line, or one focus?
This part is less about features. Clarivate is a large public company, and its business reaches well beyond IP into academic research and life sciences. Inside IP, FoundationIP is one product line next to renewals, patent analytics, and several other IP systems, some built in house and some acquired. That breadth is real, and for some buyers it's the whole draw.
Quartz IP does one thing. IP operations for patent and trademark firms, with more than 150 combined years in it. When a client asks for something the roadmap didn't have, that starts a conversation, not a support ticket, and we publish a support and product-lifecycle policy so firms know what to expect year over year. Neither model is wrong. They're just different relationships, and for a firm the relationship is part of what you're buying.
When Clarivate is the better fit
We'd rather be straight with you than win a deal that doesn't fit. Clarivate is the better call in a few real cases.
If you want one vendor for the whole IP lifecycle, with docketing, renewals, patent search, and data all from one company, Clarivate's breadth is built for that and PracticeLink isn't trying to be. If you're a corporate IP department rather than a firm, Clarivate has products aimed squarely at you, and its data and analytics depth is a real strength. And if deep patent analytics and search matter to you as much as workflow does, Clarivate's data assets are a real advantage. PracticeLink is an operations layer, not a patent research database, and we won't pretend otherwise.
Where Quartz IP fits is narrower, and we'd argue deeper: a firm that wants to keep the docketing it trusts and finally run the operational work around it well. Still weighing options? Here's a checklist for evaluating IP operations platforms, and if Anaqua is also on your list, we compared that one too.
Frequently asked questions
Does PracticeLink replace FoundationIP?
No. PracticeLink is an operations layer that runs on top of FoundationIP, not a replacement for it. Your docketing team keeps working in FoundationIP, and PracticeLink reads from it through Clarivate's REST API to add mail intake, forms, IDS packages, workflow, and client reporting.
Is Quartz IP an alternative to Clarivate?
It's more of a complement than a replacement. For a law firm, the Clarivate product in question is usually FoundationIP, and PracticeLink integrates with FoundationIP instead of competing with it. If you do decide to leave FoundationIP, PracticeLink still works, because it connects to other docketing systems too.
Does PracticeLink integrate with FoundationIP?
Yes. It connects through Clarivate's FoundationIP REST API and pulls updates through the day, so matter data, docket dates, and portfolio information flow into PracticeLink in near real time. There's no migration and no change to your FoundationIP setup.
Who owns FoundationIP?
Clarivate. FoundationIP came to Clarivate through its acquisition of CPA Global, which completed in October 2020, and Clarivate has continued developing the platform since.
What's the difference between docketing and IP operations?
Docketing tracks your deadlines and portfolio data. That's what FoundationIP does. IP operations is everything around those dates: sorting and routing incoming mail, preparing IDS and filing packages, moving work between systems, and reporting to clients. That's what PracticeLink runs.
Is Clarivate or Quartz IP better for a law firm?
They're different layers, so the honest answer is usually both. FoundationIP holds your docket. PracticeLink runs the operations on top of it. You'd pick one over the other only if you wanted a single all-in-one enterprise vendor, which is Clarivate, or an operations layer that keeps your existing docketing and connects your whole stack, which is Quartz IP.
Can I keep FoundationIP and still improve operations?
Yes, and that's the most common way firms use PracticeLink. You keep FoundationIP as your system of record and add PracticeLink for the operational work it was never built to handle. Nothing in your FoundationIP configuration changes.
Related: Quartz IP vs. CPI: What Each One Actually Does.
Related: Quartz IP vs. Inprotech: Where One Ends and the Other Starts.
Related: Quartz IP vs. Black Hills: Keep the Work In-House, or Hand It Off.
Related: How Quartz IP Compares.