Since the release of our inaugural IPR Intelligence Report in 2017, we have continuously refined our ranking methodology to better capture the realities of PTAB practice. Each year, we revisit our approach with the dual goals of improving accuracy and
To identify the most qualified attorneys, law firms and companies in each intellectual property sub-category, we apply a proprietary ranking methodology. This methodology acts as a framework for measuring activity, success and overall performance. Once all relevant data is collected,
In the past, it was challenging to rank and evaluate patent attorneys, law firms, or patent portfolios using quantitative measures. While previous reports have ranked firms or companies based on their filing activity, little effort has been made to evaluate
Much like our previous ANDA, IPR, Patent Prosecution, Patent Litigation, Trademark, and ITC Intelligence reports, we have actively engaged with the CAFC community to refine and develop the most equitable methods for assessing the performance of companies, attorneys, law firms,
Since the launch of our inaugural IPR Intelligence Report in 2017, we have consistently enhanced and refined our ranking methodology with each passing year. Our commitment to improvement is underscored by our active engagement with the IP community, soliciting feedback
As with our previous reports covering IPR, Patent Prosecution, Patent Litigation, CAFC, Trademark Prosecution, and ITC Intelligence, we have diligently incorporated feedback from the esteemed ANDA community. By carefully considering their insights, we have devised the most equitable and accurate
Over time, our ranking methodology has evolved as we deepen our comprehension of the complexities within each IP practice area and the distinguishing features of one practice from another. In the following section, we will elaborate on our method for
Our calculations for identifying the most qualified attorneys, law firms or companies for each sub-category of intellectual property rely on a ranking methodology. This methodology serves as our recipe, determining how we measure the activity, success, and performance scores of
In line with our prior reports covering CAFC, PTAB Litigation, Patent Prosecution, Trademark Prosecution, International Trade Commission Section 337 Investigations, and Abbreviated New Drug Applications Intelligence, we engaged with stakeholders and our IP community to identify the fairest and efficient
In the past, it was challenging to rank and evaluate patent attorneys, law firms, or patent portfolios using quantitative measures. While previous reports have ranked firms or companies based on their filing activity, little effort has been made to evaluate
