Patexia Insight 88: Best IPR Firms in 2020
This morning we released our 4th Annual IPR Intelligence Report. This is one of our most popular IP Insight reports. As per our tradition, we covered a five year period from July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2020. During this period, a total of 7,708 IPR petitions were filed which was five percent lower than our previous reporting period and this was due to a 20 percent drop in IPR activity in 2019 (Patexia Insight 74). Aside from rankings, this year’s report dedicates a new section to IPR cost and staffing (based on our recent survey). This week, we will cover some of the best IPR firms based on our 2020 report.
We reviewed and scored more than 900 law firms, and close to 5000 IPR attorneys by activity, success, and performance.
The full 129-page report covers all 915 law firms involved in one or more IPR cases over the last five years. Here, we highlight some of the IPR firms in alphabetical order, ranked in the top 25 by activity, success or performance. Being among the top 25 means the firm is in fact, in the top 2.5 percent out of almost 1000 law firms:
| Law Firm | Activity Rank | Success Rank | Performance Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alston & Bird |
18 (OV) |
22 (PO) | 17 (PO) |
| Buchanan Ingersoll | 4 (PO) | 4 (PO) | |
| Banner & Witcoff | 11 (PET) | ||
| Carmichael IP | 2 (PO) | 9 (PO) | |
| Desmarais IP | 16 (PO) | 18 (PO) | |
| Erise IP | 16 (PET) | ||
| Haynes & Boone | 7 (PET) | 20 (OV) | 10 (OV) |
| Lowenstein & Weatherwax | 8 (PO) | ||
| Mintz Levin | 23 (PO) | ||
| Norton Rose | 14 (PET) | 16 (PET) | |
| Perkins Coie |
8 (OV) |
16 (OV) | 7 (OV) |
| Polsinelli | 8 (PET) | 9 (PET) | |
| Sheppard Mullin | 3 (PET) | 1 (PET) | |
| Quinn Emanuel | 3 (PO) | 13 (PET) | 17 (OV) |
| Wolf Greenfield | 7 (OV) | 4 (PET) |
PO = Patent Owner, PET = Petitioner, OV = Overall, Blank = not in the top 25
A blank cell in the above table means that the firm was not ranked in the top 25 in that particular category.
Here we would like to explain a few adjustments we made to our ranking methodology this year:
- Activity Measurement (Score): We used to simply count the number of cases for each party or their representatives. While this was correct, it did not differentiate between recent and old filings. For example, some firms were very active five years ago but had almost no activity in the past four years. To take this into consideration, we implemented an Activity Score Function, which slightly discounted cases for earlier years. Under the new model, a firm with 48 cases in 2020 is ranked higher than a firm with 50 cases in 2015.
- New Success and Performance Scores/Rankings: Previously we only calculated the Performance Score which was based on the outcome of the cases (i.e., settled, denied, invalidated,etc.). This year, we renamed the old Performance Score to Success Score and then introduced a new Performance Score, which is a weighted average of Activity and Success Scores. One thing that we did not consider in the past, was that large case numbers would inevitably dilute performance over time. After all, none of us can escape the law of averages! This new performance score helps companies find highly active and highly successful law firms and attorneys (i.e., the most qualified ones).
- Settled Cases: In previous years, we used to give all the points to the petitioner if a case was settled. While oftentimes settlement means the patent owner has limited options and may be chosen by patent owners to cut their losses, in some cases, it may be a part of a larger strategy related to co-pending district court cases. As a result, and to be consistent for all cases, we decided to divide the point 0.75/0.25 between the petitioner and patent owner (according to our survey results, most of the respondents still believe a settled IPR is a victory for the petitioner).
- Lowered Cut-off Numbers for Performance and Success Rankings: Although everybody received Success and Performance Scores, we had to limit the rankings to avoid comparing a firm with a single case to another firm with more than 100 cases. This year, we required a minimum of 28 concluded cases (or 14 concluded cases for patent owners or petitioners).
Aside from calculating the activity, success and performance scores for all IPR firms, and ranking the top 100 in six categories, the 129-page PDF report, also includes 202 PTAB judges, the Top 100 attorneys and companies in six categories. The extended lists of 1000 most active attorneys, 915 law firms, 1000 most active companies with all their statistics are included in an Excel file which can be downloaded together with the PDF from the IPR Intelligence Report page. If your firm or company is a member of Patexia Concierge, you can download it by logging in to the site and clicking the “Download” button on the report page.
In the following weeks, we will publish some more statistics related to IPR. Stay tuned...