Earlier this year in February, our fourth annual ITC Intelligence Report was released, examining the ITC Section 337 investigations filed within the past six years, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2022. The report presents comprehensive statistical data extracted from these investigations at a macro level. Additionally, it offers rankings of activity and performance in various categories for all involved stakeholders and their representatives. We already have covered the growing trend of the Section 337 investigations and this week we will highlight some of the best attorneys earning their mention in this report for their high activity or distinguished performance.

During the past six years, a total of 416 ITC Section 337 investigations were filed, with 326 of them being related to violations. A total of 1,040 unique patents were involved in these 416 ITC investigations for an average of 2.5 patents per each ITC investigation. The following chart shows the ITC Section 337 filings during the period of our study. The upward trend started since 2019 and in 2022 there was a total of 78 Section 337 investigations.

Between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, a total of 4,768 attorneys represented one of the parties in an ITC violation investigation. Section 337 investigations involve typically several respondents, leading to a larger number of attorneys representing them. Of the 4,768 attorneys, 2,558 represented complainants, while 3,490 represented respondents. On average, each attorney was involved in 2.5 ITC investigations. It is worth noting that some attorneys were active on both sides, representing different parties in various cases.

The table below presents a selection of exceptional ITC attorneys who have achieved high rankings in the top 250 for their performance or activity, as determined by our ranking methodology. Being included in the top 200 out of a total of 4,768 attorneys places them within the top four percentile.

Attorney	Law Firm	All Cases	Ranked Category	Rank
Alex Lasher	Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan	42	Overall Activity Rank	1
Adam D. Swain	Alston & Bird	30	Overall Activity Rank	3
Paul M. Bartkowski	Bartkowski PLLC	27	Complainant Performance Rank	3
Michael T. Renaud	Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.	13	Complainant Performance Rank	5
Richard A. Kamprath	McKool Smith	10	Complainant Performance Rank	9
Deanna Tanner Okun	Polsinelli	20	Respondent Activity Rank	14
Philip A. Riley	Mei & Mark	19	Respondent Activity Rank	21
Aarti Shah	Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton	12	Complainant Performance Rank	34
Kevin J. Patariu	Perkins Coie	9	Respondent Performance Rank	36
Cyrus Frelinghuysen	Greenberg Traurig LLP	10	Overall Performance Rank	45
Joshua B. Pond	Crowell & Moring	9	Overall Performance Rank	65
Nicholas H. Jackson	Dentons	9	Complainant Activity Rank	72
Daniel E. Yonan	Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox	14	Respondent Performance Rank	79
Libbie A. Dimarco	Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks	8	Complainant Performance Rank	148
Bryan A. Kohm	Fenwick & West LLP	6	Overall Performance Rank	190

The complete ITC Intelligence Report delves deeper by offering statistics pertaining to unfair acts of violation, outcomes of terminated investigations, duration, and the most litigated IPC codes, among other relevant data. Additionally, it provides comprehensive rankings of the top 1,000 attorneys, law firms, and companies across all categories. The report also includes supplementary information such as the top three clients.

RANKING METHODOLOGY

We remain committed to updating and refining our approach, incorporating valuable suggestions to ensure the utmost accuracy and reliability in our assessments. This year, we made significant strides in enhancing our methodology based on the valuable feedback received from the IP community, resulting in notable improvements.

Since more recent activity is a better indicator of a law firm's current level of activity, we use a weighted function that discounts older cases when calculating the total Activity Score. This approach acknowledges that recent cases hold more significance than older ones, as a lack of recent activity could suggest a slowdown. By giving higher value to recent cases, we ensure a more accurate assessment of an attorney's level of activity.

In a terminated ITC investigation, outcomes can vary for respondents, even within the same case. To ensure a fair assessment, our scoring methodology considers these individual respondent outcomes. The table below provides a summary of how we accounted for each investigation outcome and the corresponding scores assigned to the parties and their representatives.

Outcome	Complainant	Respondent	Comp. Atty/Firm	Resp. Atty/Firm
Withdrawn	0.25	0.75	0.25	0.75
No Violation	0	1	0	1
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
Default	1	0	-	-
Not served	-	-	-	-

The outcome of an ITC investigation is influenced by numerous variables that are often beyond the control of any single party. Factors such as the nature of the product, the involved parties, the expertise of attorneys and law firms representing each side, and even the presiding judge can significantly impact the success of a case. Consequently, evaluating the Success Score of an attorney or firm without considering the influence of these interconnected factors fails to present a comprehensive picture and undermines the fairness of the assessment. To mitigate the effect of all other factors, this year for the first time, we implemented a regression model that mathematically removes the impact of other factors when looking at the attorney’s or a firm’s success.

Comparing success scores between firms or attorneys with significantly different workloads can be misleading. The Performance Score used in our IP reports combines the Success and Activity scores through a weighted average. This method is valuable in identifying attorneys and law firms with both high activity levels and a successful track record in ITC Section 337 Investigations. It allows us to recognize experienced and successful practitioners in this field.

Patexia's website users now have access to further enhanced attorney profiles, featuring a litigation module with statistics that were previously available only through reports and tools. These statistics provide valuable data-driven insights, enabling users to make informed decisions and forge meaningful connections with the most suitable legal experts.

Keep an eye out in the coming weeks as we delve deeper into the data from this report. We will explore rankings of the top law firms and companies, along with highlighting the top attorneys in patent and trademark prosecution. Stay tuned for more insightful updates!