Patexia Insight 106: Most Active and Best Performing ITC Attorneys of 2021
Earlier this March, we released our second annual ITC Intelligence Report where we examined every ITC investigation and covered high-level statistics about ITC, including all parties, judges and cases, from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2020. Despite the shrinking of the U.S. economy, which contracted by 3.5 percent during 2020, triggered by the pandemic, our research team noticed a significant growth in the number of ITC investigations in 2020 when compared to 2019 (reported in Insight 103). Simultaneously the number of lateral moves related to ITC increased as well, which reinforces the growth perspective in this sector and possibilities for the law firms to benefit from this rise (Insight 97 and Insight 101).
During the six year period of our study, a total of 335 ITC investigations were filed and a total of 969 unique patents were involved in all ITC Section 337 investigations. Eight judges, 1,790 companies, 5,640 attorneys, and 367 law firms participated. Out of the 1790 companies, 319 companies were named as complainants, while 1,538 were named as respondents.
As emphasized by the following bar graph, there is an increase in ITC Section 337 Investigations by 25% in 2020 in comparison to 2019 (64 investigations vs. 51 investigations):
This week we are going to analyze some of the most active and best performing ITC attorneys of 2021 as published in our annual report. To further improve and make sure our ranking methodology considers all aspects of the performance in attorneys and law firms, we conducted a survey with several ITC experts from different law firms.
We have measured the activity and performance of all stakeholders including complainants, respondents, ITC attorneys, and law firms in the following six categories:
- Best Performing Overall
- Best Performing Complainants
- Best Performing Respondents
- Most Active Overall
- Most Active Complainants
- Most Active Respondents
Here we would like to explain the ranking methodology, designed by our Data Science Team and the few adjustments we made this year:
Activity Score
We used to calculate the activity by taking into consideration the total number of cases for attorneys, law firms, and companies. However, given that recent activity is a better indication of how active a firm or an attorney is at the moment, we decided to use a weighted average to slightly discount the cases from prior years and give more weight to the recent cases. So for example, an attorney with five ITC investigations in 2016 should be ranked lower than another attorney with five investigations in 2020.
Success Score
Terminated ITC cases have different outcomes for respondents and complainants. Some respondents may be terminated from the case for various reasons before adjudication of a 337 decision (e.g. Withdrawn, Settlement, Consent Order); others may remain in the case until a 337 decision is made (No Violation, Violation-Settlement, Violation - Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) / General Exclusion Order (GEO) / Cease and Desist Order (CDO)). Also there are others that may default or never be served.
Summarized below is how we considered each of these outcomes and the scores we allocated to each of the parties and their representatives:
| Outcome | Complainant | Respondent |
Comp. Atty/Firm |
Resp. Atty/Firm | Judge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawn | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.75 | - |
| No Violation | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Settlement | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - |
| Consent Order | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.25 | - |
| Violation, Settlement | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 0.25 | - |
| Violation, LEO/GEO/CDO | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Default | - | - | - | - | - |
| Not served | - | - | - | - | - |
Performance Score
After surveying the ITC community, we decided to define the best performing as a combination of experience (activity) and success in ITC Section 337 Investigations. Therefore, to calculate the performance, we used a weighted average of the Success and Activity Scores. This helps us identify the ITC attorneys and law firms that have higher activity scores, and at the same time, a higher success score for those cases.
The following is a list of 20 ITC attorneys ranked among the top 50 best performing or most active ones for representing respondents, complainants or overall. Being in the top 50 out of 5640 attorneys, means the attorney is ranked in the top one percent of all ITC attorneys who were active before the International Trade Commission Section 337 since 2015. Here is the list in no particular order:
|
Attorney |
Law Firm | All Cases |
Ranked Category |
Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benjamin Lev | Levi & Snotherly | 15 | Best Performing (Overall) | 1 |
| Gregory S. Arovas | Kirkland & Ellis | 7 | Best Performing (Overall) | 16 |
| John D Haynes | Alston & Bird | 7 | Best Performing (Overall) | 17 |
| Rett Snotherly | Levi & Snotherly | 13 | Best Performing (Complainant) | 2 |
| Adam D. Swain | Alston & Bird | 27 | Best Performing (Complainant) | 25 |
| Stephanie L. Roberts | Morgan Lewis & Bockius | 15 | Best Performing (Respondent) | 5 |
| Paul F. Brinkman | Kirkland & Ellis | 24 | Best Performing (Respondent) | 6 |
| Kathryn Clune | Crowell & Moring | 6 | Best Performing (Respondent) | 26 |
| Alex Lasher | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan | 29 | Most Active (Complainant) | 2 |
| James M. Wodarski | Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo | 13 | Most Active (Complainant) | 6 |
| Evan H. Langdon | Nixon Peabody | 23 | Most Active (Complainant) | 7 |
| Aarti Shah | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton | 12 | Most Active (Complainant) | 8 |
| Matthew Duescher | Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel | 36 | Most Active (Overall) | 2 |
| Paul M. Bartkowski | Bartkowski PLLC | 28 | Most Active (Overall) | 7 |
| Barbara A. Murphy | Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel | 34 | Most Active (Respondent) | 3 |
| Eric S. Namrow | Morgan Lewis & Bockius | 20 | Most Active (Respondent) | 15 |
| Beau Jackson | Husch Blackwell LLP | 18 | Most Active (Respondent) | 20 |
| James B. Coughlan | Perkins Coie | 19 | Most Active (Respondents) | 16 |
| Lei Mei | Mei & Mark | 13 | Most Active (Respondents) | 27 |
| Jiwei Zhang | Mei & Mark | 13 | Most Active (Respondents) | 27 |
The full report evaluates all the ITC attorneys, ITC firms and companies involved in Section 337 ITC investigations over the last six years. We have analysed the performance and activity scores and have ranked the top 100 attorneys, law firms and companies in all of the above six categories. Along with the report we also provide the extended Excel file that covers all complainants and respondents (including the top 3 firms working with each), law firms and up to 1,000 most active ITC attorneys as well as their top 3 clients. Furthermore, for the first time this year, we have also included a section reviewing the important lateral moves that took place between late 2019 and early 2021 (approximately 70 or so ITC attorneys moved during the pandemic). Moving forward, we plan to continue watching the movements in key IP practice areas including ITC.
If your firm or company is a member of the Patexia Concierge you can download the ITC Intelligence 2021 for free. If not then you can always order it directly from our website. Patexia Concierge is our special subscription program, designed for IP attorneys at law firms and corporations, to help them with business development/competitive intelligence and provide them with IP intelligence for their day-to-day needs. In 2021, we cover the following 7 IP practice areas in our Patexia Insight reports: CAFC Intelligence, Trademark Intelligence, Patent Prosecution Intelligence, Patent Litigation Intelligence, IPR Intelligence, ANDA Litigation Intelligence and the ITC Intelligence with its helpful data used for this article.
In the following weeks we plan to continue our coverage of ITC Section 337 Investigations, by covering the best performing and most active ITC firms of 2021. Stay tuned!