Pedram Sameni
Mar 7, 2024
Featured

Patexia Insight 200: Top Lateral Moves in Patent Litigation 2023

As the patent litigation landscape continues to evolve, it's essential not only to analyze the trends and shifts but also to examine the law firms that strategically position themselves within this dynamic environment. With Texas maintaining its prominence in patent litigation, as highlighted in Patexia 198, the past year has seen significant lateral movements within the legal sphere. Drawing from the insights provided by our Patent Litigation Intelligence Report for 2024, this article covers the major lateral moves among attorneys and law firms, offering valuable insights into their implications for the patent litigation landscape. 

As illustrated above, the annual caseload reached its peak in 2021 with 3,953 filings, showing a slight 0.38% increase in litigation activity compared to the previous year. However, in 2022, there was a decline in total filings, with 3,766 cases reported, marking a decrease of 4.73% from 2021. This downward trend persisted into 2023, with a further decrease of 17.5%, resulting in a total of 3,108 filings. On the other hand, the number of patents implicated in these cases followed varying trajectories. They witnessed a steady increase from 2018 to 2021, experienced a decline in 2022, and then saw another slight increase in 2023.

The full Patent Litigation Intelligence Report focuses on the cases filed over the past five years, from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023, using the most recent data update as of December 1, 2023. This allows sufficient time for most cases to progress and terminate, enabling meaningful insights to be drawn, including those derived from the outcomes of terminated cases. In addition to analyzing trends, the report ranks states and district courts based on patent litigation activity, identifying the most litigated patents, IPC codes, and provides in-depth analysis of terminated cases. It examines factors such as the average length for termination, the status of terminated cases, and draws conclusions on which side prevailed in cases that proceeded to trial, among other key insights. Moreover, going beyond statistical analysis, we have evaluated and ranked all stakeholders involved in these cases based on their activity and performance. This includes 30,671 companies, 3,309 law firms, 1,359 judges, and 15,808 attorneys, providing a comprehensive overview of their patent litigation practice.

We have incorporated a dedicated section on lateral moves to enhance the depth of our analysis. This section leverages data from the release of our previous report in January 2023, which is compared with current data, to identify and analyze the lateral movements of attorneys within the patent litigation landscape. To enhance the relevance and usefulness of the list for attorneys, we focused on the 1,000 most active attorneys, identifying individuals who undertook lateral moves to new firms or initiated their own firms during the past year. Our review uncovered a total of 39 such lateral moves. Here below is the table listing the details of each attorney, including their current and previous firms, the total number of cases in which they were involved as well as their current activity rank: 

 

Attorney Current Firm Old Firm Overall Activity Rank All Cases
Ryan S. Loveless Loveless Law Group, PLLC

Etheridge Law Group

27 227
Marc Belloli Bunsow De Mory Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP 32 127
Brett A. Mangrum Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC Etheridge Law Group 50 177
Elizabeth Day Bunsow De Mory Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP 53 131
Ryan Pinckney Alavi Anaipakos, PLLC Antonelli Harrington & Thompson 132 134
Betty H. Chen Desmarais LLP Fish & Richardson 152 41
Daniel L. Schmid Lodestone Technical Services Carter Arnett 182 44
Jerry D. Tice II Bunsow De Mory Kramer Day Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP 192 63
Theresa M. Dawson Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

Carter Arnett

215 60
Ryan K. Iwahashi Gish PLLC Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 218 28
Erik James Halverson K&L Gates

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

224 38
Joshua A. Whitehill Brown Rudnick LLP Kasowitz Benson Torres 248 58
David T. Shackelford Frost LLP

Greenberg Gross LLP

298 42
Rachael D. Lamkin Baker Botts LLP Lamkin IP Defense 300 35
Michael B. Eisenberg Stevens & Lee

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

330 24
Ashley N. Moore Michelman & Robinson, LLP McKool Smith 348 60
Kyril Vladimir Talanov Spencer Fane

Ramey LLP

393 56
Yar R. Chaikovsky White & Case Paul Hastings 452 23
Joshua B. Long Kelley Drye & Warren

Duane Morris LLP

469 16
Matthew C. Holohan Quarles & Brady Sheridan Ross 516 32
Nathan I. Cox Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP

Carter Arnett

537 30
Cory R. Edwards Blank Rome LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan 538 48
Susan S. Q. Kalra Ramey LLP

Mahamedi IP Law

579 25
Amy E. Simpson Holland & Knight Perkins Coie 602 13
Matthew G. Berkowitz Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

Shearman & Sterling

623 24
Jeffrey J. Catalano Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP Freeborn & Peters 633 23
Philip Ou White & Case

Paul Hastings

634 18
Lillian J. Mao Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Shearman & Sterling 680 18
Patrick R. Colsher Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

Shearman & Sterling

683 20
Michael K. Friedland Friedland Cianfrani LLP Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP 715 21
Andrew D. Gordon-Seifert Irwin IP

McDonald Hopkins

716 10
Kristina D. McKenna Latham & Watkins Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 726 13
Amy E. Lavalle Frost Brown Todd

Munck Wilson Mandala

732 17
Jason M. Zucchi Barnes & Thornburg LLP Fish & Richardson 738 19
Bruce Shei Yen White & Case

Paul Hastings

741 13
Timothy K. Gilman Schulte Roth & Zabel Stroock & Stroock & Lavan 742 14
Alfonso Garcia Chan King & Spalding

McKool Smith

750 28
Andrew Bledsoe Larson LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP 766 19
Jose L. Patino Buchalter

Eversheds Sutherland

846 18

 

By using the lateral move data, we also conducted an analysis aimed at calculating the net gain for each law firm actively involved in patent litigation. This net gain is derived by subtracting the number of attorneys who departed from a firm from the number of attorneys who joined. A couple of observations on the top three law firms growing:

Stay tuned as in the following weeks we will be publishing the top most active and best-performing companies in patent litigation as highlighted in our Patent Litigation Intelligence report released in January.