In 2019 and 2020, JUVE Patent journalists conducted research into Europe’s four most important patent markets, France, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands, as well as Austria, in order to compile the JUVE Patent rankings.
JUVE Patent has now published its first rankings on the fourth main European market, namely the Netherlands. Our first rankings for the French market were published in April 2020 and for the UK in December 2019. They provide in-depth analysis of law firms and their European strategies. Each year, JUVE Patent also lists the leading litigators and patent attorneys and takes a closer look at the most significant developments in the national patent markets.
For all of our current rankings, JUVE Patent interviewed thousands of international lawyers and their clients. This information provides the basis for our rankings, which currently portray and evaluate the market positions of 232 different patent law firms in Austria, Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK.
Various criteria play an important role when analysing the market position of a law firm or its office. The relevance of individual aspects changes with the needs of the client. For example, the ability to provide efficient and competent advice on cross-border issues is becoming increasingly crucial, while the individual specialisations of lawyers must be coordinated through effective management. The presence of lawyers and patent attorneys in litigious disputes is of great importance, as is strategic portfolio management by patent attorneys.
Legal and technical expertise forming the firm’s business.
Development of core areas to support clients in managing legal risks.
Ability to advise on cross-border matters at a high level.
Number of practitioners regarded as outstanding in patent law.
Consistently high quality standards in all technical fields.
Complexity and scope of work.
High level of service and flexibility.
Effective coordination of individual specialisations of lawyers and attorneys geared by the law firm’s management and structure.
Stable and functional international contacts.
Nurturing quality client relationships.
Advance planning and identification of trends in the patent market and the clients’ respective markets.
Law firm culture, strategy and philosophy represented and maintained by the firm’s lawyers. A sustainable structure that helps attract and retain high-quality junior lawyers.
Read more about the research criteria here.
For many years, JUVE has awarded the title of JUVE IP Firm of the Year for a firm’s work and achievements over the past year. The recipient is chosen from a pool of five nominees that have demonstrated a strong performance and strategic development in soft IP, patent law or both. The successful handling of prominent cases plays just as important a role here as the dynamic development of the IP practice.
Since 2018, JUVE has also bestowed an IP in-house Team of the Year award. Here the winner is selected from five nominees doing outstanding work and making demonstrable dynamic growth. Teams in soft IP and the patent field can also be considered.
The selection of nominees and winners in the IP categories is based on extensive research conducted by JUVE Patent throughout the year. Annually, at end of October, the winners receive their awards at a ceremony with over 1000 guests at the Frankfurt Opera House.
JUVE Patent’s editorial team not only ranks law firms; it also conducts research on patent judges. In 2017, for the second time, the team interviewed patent experts across Europe about their desired candidates for the judge’s bench at the Unified Patent Court. The result is a wish list for the UPC’s local and central divisions from the point of view of the patent system’s future users. JUVE Patent will continue to conduct such surveys in the future and will identify the most popular national judges.
The Market Analysis & Rankings section on our website also features the JUVE Patent Survey. Here, the JUVE Patent journalists recently interviewed decision makers in in-house patent departments worldwide about their opinions on the development of the EPO and the UPC. In future, they will also be asked about other important topics in the European patent market.