Patexia Insight 202: Top Patent Litigation Law Firms for 2024
Patent litigation is essential for safeguarding the rights of patent owners, and over the past decade, its significance has only grown, catalyzed by legislative reforms and even expansion of litigation funds to back the promising opportunities. Recognizing this importance, Patexia analyzes the patent litigation landscape yearly, not only providing high-level statistics but also evaluating and ranking all stakeholders based on their activity and performance.
Our latest Patent Litigation Intelligence Report was published in late January. In our previous insights, we covered several highlights from this report, including litigation trends in the most active states (Texas, California, and Delaware), lateral moves among the top 1,000 most active attorneys, and the top most active and best-performing companies. This week’s insight will cover some of the top patent litigation firms recognized in this report either for their high activity or great performance.
The Patent Litigation Intelligence Report 2024 focuses on cases filed over the past five years, from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023, utilizing the latest data updated as of December 1, 2023. This chosen time frame enables cases to progress and terminate, offering invaluable insights, particularly into the performance of all involved parties, which varies depending on the type of termination. Within this period, a total of 18,191 cases were filed, involving 17,285 unique patents. As of December 1, 2023, a total of 15,099 out of these cases have reached termination, with their statuses accessible through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, while the remaining 3,092 cases were still ongoing. As seen above, the majority of terminated cases resulted in dismissals, with approximately 41.4% dismissed voluntarily, 20.4% dismissed due to settlements, and 19.6% dismissed for other reasons. Only about 8.5% of cases ended in judgment decisions. The remaining cases were either transferred accounting for 6.4%, or closed for statistical reasons and other purposes, 3.8%.
We assess performance based on the outcomes of terminated cases, considering dismissals, settlements, and judgment decisions, and allocate points accordingly to all parties and their representatives. As for the activity, we take into account the number of cases where an entity participates as well as the number of unique patents involved, recognizing that the workload increases with a larger number of patents. For detailed insights into our ranking methodology, please refer to the comprehensive explanation provided here.
A total of 3,309 law firms represented either defendants or plaintiffs in one or more of the 18,191 patent litigation cases. Our analysis identified 2,228 firms representing plaintiffs and 2,181 firms representing defendants, with certain firms appearing on both sides in different cases. We noticed that a small number of firms exhibited high activity levels, handling a significant percentage of all cases. Some of these firms managed cases independently, while others acted as local counsel, particularly in states with heightened activity, such as Texas, Delaware, or California. To maintain clarity, we have distinctively categorized local counsel, creating a separate section in the report for further exploration.
Below is a table featuring some of the top law firms, recognized for their activity or performance, along with their respective number of cases. Being included in the top 100 out of a total of 3,309 firms indicates that the firm ranks within the top three percentile for their respective category.
| Law Firm | All Cases | Category | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| DLA Piper |
486 |
2 |
Overall Performance Rank |
| McKool Smith | 365 | 2 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
| Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan |
480 |
2 |
Overall Activity Rank |
| Greenberg Traurig LLP | 243 | 9 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Alston & Bird |
251 |
11 |
Overall Performance Rank |
| Fabricant LLP | 299 | 12 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
| Fenwick & West LLP |
216 |
12 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton | 223 | 14 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP |
171 |
19 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
| Carter Arnett | 107 | 33 | Plaintiff Performance Rank |
| Haynes and Boone, LLP |
106 |
37 |
Overall Performance Rank |
| Polsinelli | 97 | 49 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Erise IP P.A. |
73 |
52 |
Defendant Performance Rank |
| Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. | 125 | 55 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
| Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox |
98 |
57 |
Plaintiff Performance Rank |
| Klarquist Sparkman | 42 | 66 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Kelly Hart & Hallman |
56 |
66 |
Defendant Performance Rank |
| Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks | 61 | 69 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Keener & Associates PC |
18 |
91 |
Plaintiff Performance Rank |
Stay tuned, as in the upcoming weeks, we will publish another insight that will reveal some of the best attorneys in patent litigation and also will start covering some major highlights from our ITC Section 337 Intelligence Report published back in February.