Compare law firm experience and outcomes across selected patent litigation criteria.
Firm Performance compares law firms across several measures of patent litigation experience and outcomes. Use it to evaluate firms in a specific forum, against particular parties or opposing firms, within selected technologies, and from either the patentee or patent challenger perspective.
What it tells you
Section titled “What it tells you”Firm Performance presents a ranked table of law firms with measures such as:
- win rate
- cases won
- rank by cases won
- cases with qualifying win or loss outcomes
- number of U.S. district court trials
- average days to trial
The tool is designed to help you compare both experience and results within the segment of patent litigation you select.
Questions it can answer
Section titled “Questions it can answer”- Which firms have the most wins for patentees or patent challengers?
- How do firms compare by win rate within a selected forum or technology?
- Which firms have experience representing or opposing a particular party?
- Which firms have taken the most qualifying cases to trial?
- How does a shortlist of firms compare under the same litigation criteria?
How to interpret the analysis
Section titled “How to interpret the analysis”Firm Performance evaluates law firm results and experience within the patent cases that match your selected criteria.
The selected Party Role determines the perspective of the analysis. For example, choosing Patentee evaluates results from the patentee side, while Patent Challenger evaluates the opposing side.
Win rate is based on qualifying case outcomes rather than all cases in which the firm appeared. The treatment of mixed outcomes can be changed using the Mixed Outcome Grouping control.
The table also separates outcome measures from trial experience. A firm may have substantial case or trial experience without having the highest win rate, and a high win rate based on a smaller set of qualifying outcomes should be interpreted in that context.
Filters and defaults
Section titled “Filters and defaults”Use the controls on the left to focus the comparison.
Available criteria include:
- specific firms to compare
- forum: USDC, PTAB, ITC, or All
- U.S. district court
- party role
- represented parties
- opposing parties
- opposing firms
- patent technology
- case termination year
- mixed outcome treatment
- ANDA inclusion
- cases with or without Highly Assertive Entities (HAEs)
- treatment of non-merits dismissals
- local counsel
By default, mixed outcomes are grouped with wins. Local counsel can be included and highlighted when relevant to your research.
Changing these settings changes the population and, in some cases, how outcomes are interpreted.
Reading the results
Section titled “Reading the results”Each row represents a law firm. Use the columns together rather than relying on a single measure.
Cases Won and Cases Won Rank are useful for understanding demonstrated volume. Win Rate provides an outcome-based comparison. USDC Trials and Average Days to Trial add context about trial experience and timing.
You can use Compare Firms to narrow the table to a shortlist of firms while keeping the same underlying criteria.
The table can also be downloaded as a CSV for further review or analysis.
Explore the results
Section titled “Explore the results”Select a linked firm name to continue your research in Docket Navigator.
Use Firm Performance as a starting point for reviewing a firm’s cases, clients, opposing parties, and other litigation experience in more detail.
Important considerations
Section titled “Important considerations”Firm Performance reflects historical results within the criteria you select. It does not measure the quality of a firm’s legal work or predict the outcome of a future matter.
Win rate should be considered alongside the number of qualifying outcomes and the broader litigation context. Comparisons are most meaningful when firms are evaluated using the same filters and outcome settings.