By John Bringardner, with research by Ann Sherman
IP Law & Business/July 2007

Reprints & Permissions

Patent litigation held steady in 2006, but was it the calm before the storm? The top firms in our seventh annual patent litigation survey showed only a slight bump up in work last year. In 2006 total U.S. filings reached 2,830, up 4 percent from 2,720 in 2005, though still shy of 2004's 3,075 cases, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. But lawyers are already bracing themselves for a new wave of patent litigation following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex. Combined with the justices' other recent patent rulings and the potential for patent reform in 2007, the litigation landscape has suddenly been transformed into uncharted territory.

Our survey is simple but instructive. It is quantitative, showing the most active firms based on the number of patent cases a firm filed in 2006 that were still active as of February 1, 2007. It does not reflect the quality of a firm's work, nor cases that might have been settled in that period. It also is blind to whether a case required sporadic attention from a single attorney or teams of lawyers billing around the clock. But the rankings do provide a sense of which firms are taking on the most new work.

One more note about this year's list: We have departed from our earlier methodology by opting to cull separate lists of firms headquartered in Delaware or the Eastern District of Texas. These firms typically serve as local counsel in IP cases. While we did not require firms to specify when they served as local counsel in each case, we felt the rankings more accurately reflect the nature of the work. For example, without a separate Delaware list, Wilmington-based Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell would have placed second overall, tied with Jones Day. While Morris, Nichols serves a crucial role in its district, the firm isn't bringing the clients to court like the much larger Jones Day, with 29 offices around the world. On the other hand, several large firms, like number one-ranked Fish & Richardson, have their own Wilmington office but are counted in the national rankings. Of course, local counsel can often play a crucial role in trial.

On our plaintiffs chart, Chicago-based Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro was busy with cases for patent-holding companies, while patent-holding company Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing kept a lot of law firms busy all by itself. Ronald Katz, the inventor who claims responsibility for much of the technology behind computerized telephone answering systems, hired Cooley Godward Kronish to file 19 cases in the Eastern District of Texas and Heller Ehrman to file another five in Delaware. Cooley makes its first appearance on our list, second only to Jones Day for plaintiffs work and eighth overall. Heller makes a first appearance on the plaintiffs list at 14 and ranks 14 overall. In addition to the Katz work, the firm's growth is explained by the expansion of its East Coast offices, particularly in D.C., explains partner Patricia Thayer.

Another big mover in 2006 was Greenberg Traurig, which jumped up all three lists-from eleventh to fifth in plaintiffs work, eighteenth to tenth in defense work, and twelfth to sixth overall. While most other firms talk about organic growth, Greenberg has aggressively built up its IP capabilities nationwide with lateral hires, not only for its trademark and counterfeit practices, a traditional strength at the firm, but also in patent litigation. "We have made it a point to bring in attorneys at the mid and upper levels who served their apprenticeships, so to speak, at IP boutiques," says Paul Sutton, cochair of the firm's IP practice. Sutton says the firm generates a "great deal of litigation from long-standing clients who have new matters," but says lateral hires often bring already-pending litigation, or they move to Greenberg to pursue litigation blocked by a previous firm's client conflicts.

IP specialty firms ruled the top of the charts in our first survey in 2000. But since then, large general practice firms with IP groups have carved out their own robust businesses. Jones Day is number one in plaintiffs work. Foley & Lardner and Kirkland & Ellis are in the top five overall, rubbing shoulders with traditional IP powerhouses like Fish & Richardson and Howrey. But even though their lawyers are poached by general practice firms, several IP specialty shops thrive. Kenyon & Kenyon partner Richard DeLucia says that much of the firm's patent litigation comes from larger general practice firms conflicting out of the work.

Fish & Richardson tops our chart for the sixth time since we started the survey in 2000. But it's not been all good news for the Boston-based boutique. The firm lost two high-profile cases for Microsoft. First came the 2006 loss to Brooks Kushman litigator Ernie Brooks on infringement of z4 Technology's digital rights management patents, then the firm lost again this March against Alcatel-Lucent on digital music patents, to a Kirkland & Ellis team headed by John Desmarais. Will those losses help topple Fish & Richardson from number one? You can bet that Katherine Lutton, the firm's new head of litigation, is working intensely to make sure that the firm continues its reign.

Plaintiff
These firms are ranked by the number of cases in which they represented plaintiffs.
Rank 2007	Rank 2006	Firm	Total Cases
1	4	Jones Day	27
2	N/A	Cooley Godward	24
3	3	Fish & Richardson	21
3	7	Foley & Lardner	21
5	11	Greenberg Traurig	20
6	9	Howrey	17
7	13	Connolly Bove	16
7	N/A	Kirkland & Ellis	16
7	1	Niro, Scavone	16
10	9	McDermott Will	15
11	N/A	Knobbe Martens	14
12	N/A	Weil, Gotshal	13
13	N/A	Reed Smith	12
14	8	Finnegan, Henderson	11
14	N/A	Brooks Kushman	11
14	5	Fitzpatrick, Cella	11
14	N/A	Heller Ehrman	11
14	N/A	Kenyon & Kenyon	11
19	N/A	Robins, Kaplan	10
19	11	Sidley Austin	10
19	N/A	Dorsey & Whitney	10

On The Defense
These firms are ranked by the number of cases in which they represented defendants.
Rank 2007	Rank 2006	Firm	Total Cases
1	1	Fish & Richardson	58
2	3	Kirkland & Ellis	38
3	2	Jones Day	29
4	7	Howrey	27
5	4	Morrison & Foerster	26
6	6	Foley & Lardner	24
7	18	Baker Botts	23
8	N/A	Niro, Scavone	22
9	18	Knobbe Martens	21
10	18	Greenberg Traurig	19
11	15	Finnegan, Henderson	18
11	12	McDermott Will	18
11	22	Perkins Coie	18
14	5	Kenyon & Kenyon	17
15	N/A	Heller Ehrman	16
15	22	Kilpatrick Stockton	16
15	29	Ropes & Gray	16
15	7	Wilson Sonsini	16
19	12	Goodwin Procter	15
19	N/A	Latham & Watkins	15
19	N/A	Paul Hastings	15
19	18	Sidley Austin	15
19	9	Weil, Gotshal	15
24	15	Alston & Bird	14
24	12	DLA Piper	14
24	11	Winston & Strawn	14
27	9	Michael Best	13
28	N/A	Fulbright & Jaworski	12
29	22	Duane Morris	11
29	N/A	King & Spalding	11
31	N/A	Connolly Bove	10
31	N/A	Gibson Dunn	10

Grand Total Law firms ranked by number of patent cases
Rank 2007	Rank 2006	Firm	Total Cases
1	1	Fish & Richardson	79
2	2	Jones Day	56
3	5	Kirkland & Ellis	54
4	3	Foley & Lardner	45
5	5	Howrey	44
6	12	Greenberg Traurig	39
7	5	Niro, Scavone	38
8	15	Knobbe Martens	35
9	N/A	Cooley Godward	33
9	9	McDermott Will	33
11	17	Baker Botts	31
11	4	Morrison & Foerster	31
13	12	Kenyon & Kenyon	28
13	22	Weil, Gotshal	28
15	N/A	Heller Ehrman	27
16	27	Connolly Bove	26
16	22	Perkins Coie	26
18	10	Finnegan, Henderson	25
18	10	Kilpatrick Stockton	25
18	12	Sidley Austin	25
21	29	Ropes & Gray	24
22	N/A	Latham & Watkins	22
22	17	Michael Best	22
24	22	Alston & Bird	21
24	N/A	Paul Hastings	21
24	N/A	Reed Smith	21
27	20	DLA Piper	18
27	32	Fulbright & Jaworski	18
27	22	Goodwin Procter	18
27	17	Winston & Strawn	18
31	27	Dorsey & Whitney	17
32	32	Duane Morris	16
32	N/A	King & Spalding	16
32	29	Morgan, Lewis	16
32	20	Wilson Sonsini	16
36	N/A	Brooks Kushman	15
36	22	Fitzpatrick, Cella	15
36	N/A	Robins, Kaplan	15
Source: Law firm submissions. Suits had to be filed in federal district court in calendar year 2006 and still be active on February 1, 2007.

Methodology
Earlier this year IP Law & Business contacted more than 250 law firms, asking for a list of the patent suits that they filed in federal district courts during calendar year 2006 that were still active on February 1, 2007. (We didn't want to include suits that were here today and gone tomorrow.) We did not count cases in front of the International Trade Commission or appellate courts. Some firms listed multiple cases with the same plaintiff. If those cases involved the same patent, highly similar technology, or consolidated discovery, we counted all the cases as one. (This was an effort to not penalize firms that filed a single suit against multiple defendants instead of multiple cases.) For the plaintiffs and defense lists, a firm had to have ten or more cases to appear. In the combined list, a firm had to have 15 cases to appear. Return to IP Law & Business