Honest answers, including the unflattering ones.

A weekly curated digest of expiring pharma patents, ranked HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW for generics R&D relevance. Plus a searchable index of 30,000+ patents, watchlists, and a public methodology page. Tuesday 06:00 UTC delivery. €39/mo founding, €69 beta, €129 standard.

It is not a search platform across all patents (that's PatSnap). It is not a database licensing product (that's Derwent). It's a curated read — opinionated, narrow, and honest about it.

Mid-tier generic-drug R&D teams (Glenmark, Zydus, Cipla, Torrent, Aurobindo, Krka, Stada, Polpharma and peers). The three roles the digest is tuned for: generics R&D lead, IP portfolio manager, BD/licensing scout.

Pfizer or Novartis-scale: probably under-scoped. Solo patent attorney watching one molecule: over-scoped. Sweet spot is teams of 2–20 without a six-figure analyst subscription.

Three reasons, in order of weight:

1. It's one product, not a platform. A curated 24-row weekly digest is structurally cheaper to deliver than search across hundreds of millions of patents.

2. It's pre-revenue and beta. Founding-tier pricing reflects the truth that you're taking on early-product risk — the AI scoring is on rubric v3, the feedback loop isn't seasoned yet.

3. The competitor set is enterprise. Priced for procurement, not for an IP manager with discretionary budget. €39 fits the "I can decide this without a meeting" zone — the structural advantage worth pricing for.

Three concrete differences:

• Pricing visible. None of the four publish a price. PharmaCliff does.
• Methodology public. Sources, cadence, signal weights, verdict bands — all on the methodology page. None of the four publish their full rubric.
• Curated, not comprehensive. 30,000+ patents, CPC-pre-filtered to 14 TA anchors. Competitors stretch from medical devices to consumer products. Different bet.

Yes — without an email gate. Sample digest is here. Read it cold. If after reading it you don't see why an IP manager would want one every Tuesday, the product isn't for you, and you saved an awkward call.

€39/mo, billed yearly (€468), for the lifetime of your continuous subscription. If standard pricing later rises to €199, you stay at €39. Cancel and re-subscribe and the locked price is gone — that's the only way to lose it. Written into the receipt at signup.

One click in Stripe Customer Portal, or email hello@pharmacliff.com. No retention call. Refund within 30 days of last payment is automatic. After that, access through the current billing period.

Yes for founding tier — pre-Stripe, every reservation is manual and the method is whatever your finance team needs (card, SEPA, wire, PO). Post-Stripe, card is default but invoice + SEPA remain available on request.

Founding tier is single-seat by design. Standard tier post-GA will support team seats. Need early team access? Email — usually doable.

EU customers get a proper VAT invoice with reverse-charge handling for B2B. Non-EU customers get a simple receipt. Operated by a Lithuanian sole proprietorship — Stripe handles the rest.

Four public registries: FDA Orange Book (daily), USPTO PAIR (weekly + on-demand), EPO INPADOC (weekly families), Google Patents BigQuery (monthly historical). All queryable from your side. See the methodology page.

Five signals — Orange Book route, family convergence, claim breadth, time-to-expiry, TA-anchor depth — weighted into a 0–100 score. Weights are published. Verdict bands: HIGH ≥ 75, MED 50–74, LOW < 50. Temperature 0, seeded. Same patent + same rubric version → same score, always.

The rubric itself is what's beta, not the model. The model runs at temperature 0, so scores are stable across runs. But the weighting between the five signals — and verdict cutoffs at 75 and 50 — are still being tuned against subscriber feedback. Currently rubric v3, v4 within a quarter.

Every rubric change is logged in the methodology changelog with rationale. Historical archived scores stay at the version they were sent under — no quiet re-scoring.

Medical devices. Diagnostics. Veterinary pharma. Agrochemicals. Cannabis. Consumer-health formulations without a CPC anchor match. The full anchor table lives in the repo at lib/therapeutic-areas.ts.

Orange Book: 24 hours or less. USPTO PAIR: up to a week for new grants (no real-time grant feed — known limitation). INPADOC families: weekly.

Because there aren't any worth publishing yet, and a generic logo carousel of names you don't recognize would be worse than silence. Once founding subscribers have notes worth quoting, they'll appear with role + region, not name + company.

Honest scenario worth answering. Three commitments:

• Notice. 90 days' notice on shutdown + refund of the unused portion.
• Data. Full digest archive exportable as JSON or PDF before shutdown — you keep what you read.
• Source. Data sources are public registries. Anything paid for is re-derivable with effort. PharmaCliff is the curation, not the data.

You shouldn't, on prior trust alone. Trust the sample digest if it reads as useful. Trust the methodology page if it answers questions the competitor pages dodge. Trust the price visibility as a signal that there's no hidden enterprise contract waiting. If those three don't convince you, don't subscribe — it's a €39 product, not a strategic vendor relationship.

Magic link to your email — no passwords. Login page. Link expires in 15 minutes; check spam or request another from the same page.

Yes — in your dashboard, anytime. Founding and standard tiers can pick all 14 anchors; beta is capped at 4 by tier design. Changes apply to the next digest, not retroactively.

EU-hosted (Frankfurt). Only personal data stored: email + TA filter selections. Standard GDPR data export + deletion endpoints in account settings. Details in the privacy policy.

Email hello@pharmacliff.com. No form, no ticket queue, no chatbot. Usually a reply within a day.