Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, Floor 6 New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com IP Attorneys Dominate At Fish & Richardson By Erin Coe Law360, New York (December 04, 2009) -- Although Fish & Richardson PC has branched out from its established intellectual property brand to include a business litigation practice, the firm continues to tower over its competitors by having the greatest concentration of IP attorneys of any firm with 100 or more lawyers, according to Law 360's 2009 practice area survey. Fish & Richardson dedicates 96 percent of its attorneys or 389 of a total of 404 to IP work and stands far above runner-up Howrey LLP, which devotes 48 percent of its attorneys, or 285 of a total of 590 lawyers, to the practice. Down the line for third is Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, which has committed 101 of its 248 lawyers, or 41 percent, to IP. 1. Fish & Richardson PC: 96% of practitioners Founded in 1878, the firm began as an IP specialty shop, playing a key role in prosecuting and litigating fundamental patents covering the telephone, the automobile and the radio. Over the past century, Fish & Richardson has continued to focus predominantly on IP litigation, patent prosecution and strategic counseling, as well as trademark and copyright matters, but its expertise in IP has opened the door for the firm to bring in 15 corporate litigators who have seen their practice grow substantially over the past year. We view IP litigation as a form of complex business litigation, requiring highly developed advocacy skills and the ability to explain complicated information sufficiently that a judge or jury can make decisions of law and fact, said Peter J. Devlin, president of the firm. The firm s business and IP litigators work together closely and are often cross-staffed on cases. The IP transactional practice is led by Richard J. Anderson, and its IP and commercial
litigation teams are run by Katherine Lutton. Many of our litigators work on both IP matters and general business litigation matters. The distinction is seamless to our clients, Devlin said. While the corporate group has seen a spike in work in the areas of white collar criminal defense and securities and employment litigation, 90 percent of the firm s revenue comes from the IP group, according to Devlin. Because its IP practice includes more than 80 attorneys with Ph.D.s, Fish & Richardson is able to offer clients a deep bench with technical expertise ranging from the electrical engineering and computer sciences fields to the biotech and pharmaceutical areas. The practice has attracted a prominent group of clients, including Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Bose Corp., Allergan Inc. and Biogen Idec Inc., as well as small startups, such as Perceptive Pixel Inc. The firm has helped secure a decision overturning the cancellation of Bose s Wave trademark in a case that could lead to fewer findings of trademark fraud. It also has been instrumental in representing Microsoft in several patent disputes with Alcatel-Lucent. According to Devlin, the practice has handled the most new patent litigation compared with any firm in the U.S. and is seen as the go-to firm for defending clients in the patent-friendly U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and initiating patent re-examination proceedings. The IP team has remained busy throughout the downturn by taking on 14 abbreviated new drug application cases for brand companies in the last two years and pharmaceutical disputes between competitors. As clients deal with shrinking budgets, the firm has shown a willingness to offer alternative fee arrangements, such as fixed-fee arrangements and capped billing, and has taken cases on an incentive basis. While it has deferred its class of new associates from this year to next fall and made offers to fewer summer associates, Fish & Richardson expects to be back on its normal track next year. 2. Howrey LLP: 48% of practitioners
As a litigation specialty firm, Howrey has nearly half its lawyers concentrating on the IP area, while the rest of the firm focuses on antitrust matters and commercial litigation. The IP group has become known for its strengths in patent litigation and strategic prosecution and counseling and has handled substantial trademark work, U.S. International Trade Commission proceedings and patent re-exams. Representing clients with patent portfolios spanning the globe, the practice also has a deep understanding of litigating matters across Europe and often gets pulled in for strategic evaluations. Howrey relies on its IP team to bring in as much as 45 percent of the overall revenue, and while its practice had its best year ever in 2008, it expects to do almost as well this year even as many law firms face a 30 percent drop in billable hours, according to Alan M. Grimaldi, who co-chairs the firm s IP group with William C. Rooklidge. Its ability to stay busy during the recession has much to do with the increasing amount of work steered its way from preferred provider relationships. Several corporations have narrowed in on a few select law firms to handle the majority of their IP work, and at least 30 clients have chosen Howrey to be on their short list for IP matters, Grimaldi said. Clients see us as a trial firm, and we have tried more cases than most other firms, he said. Rooklidge said clients also have found a real advantage in the IP practice s in-house team of economists, damages experts and trial support staff. Howrey has represented Amgen Inc., General Electric Co., Procter & Gamble Co., Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV and SAP AG on various IP matters. The firm acted as liaison counsel on behalf of all 128 defendants in the wide-spanning case brought by Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing LP over interactive call processing technology. The case was the largest patent multidistrict litigation in history, and after obtaining summary judgment of invalidity on 46 asserted claims, the firm worked out a settlement with its most recent client General Motors Corp. in June. Howrey also convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in September to uphold an injunction barring Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. from selling its anemia drug Mircera in
the U.S. in Amgen s suit over its anemia drug patents. Grimaldi said the firm continues to spend a significant amount of time in popular patent jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Wisconsin, the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Delaware. Where people are flocking to the courthouses, you ll find us there, he said. Howrey in July upgraded the practice by combining with Silicon Valley-based IP litigation boutique Day Casebeer Madrid and Batchelder LLP, a 25-lawyer team with a leading life sciences practice in Europe. Grimaldi said the IP team is interested in strategic growth and will continue to seek out key acquisitions of small practice groups. We re pretty careful about acquisitions. We want attorneys who have the same chemistry and goals as we do, he said. 3. Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP: 41% of practitioners Robins Kaplan s IP group is the largest practice within the national firm, and more than 90 percent of its work revolves around patent litigation, with the rest coming from trademark, copyright and trade secrets matters. The IP team has handled litigation in every discipline, from electronics and computers to chemicals and biotech, and its practice is reinforced by an in-house group of 10 scientists with doctorates who focus on discovery and prior-art searches, according to Ronald J. Schutz, who chairs the firm s IP litigation group. The scientists are highly skilled and educated in every complicated area of technology imaginable, and they really bolster our team, he said. The patent litigation team extends across other litigation departments, including the firm s business and antitrust groups, and the IP group is counted on for bringing in a greater proportion of revenue than the 41 percent of lawyers devoted to that practice, Schutz said. Robins Kaplan has taken on cases for Honeywell Inc., Advanced Micro Devices Inc., Medtronic Inc., 3M Co., General Mills Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Alcatel-Lucent and TiVo Inc. The firm in June 2008 secured a total $89 million award for Grantley Patent Holdings Inc. in
its patent infringement case against Clear Channel Communications Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas over an integrated inventory management system for radio advertising time. Clear Channel is appealing the verdict. Robins Kaplan also has landed several multimillion-dollar awards for St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. in its infringement cases against Canon Inc., Sony Corp. and Fuji Ltd. in the District of Delaware over digital camera patents. Despite the economic downturn, the practice has been swamped with work and is even looking to hire more laterals, according to Schutz. We are very fortunate that we have not been impacted in terms of the amount of work, and we have not had to let anyone go, he said. The Minneapolis-based firm is a popular choice for clients because they can receive representation from exceptional lawyers at a good value as far as billing rates go, and the IP team has had substantial success and gained invaluable trial experience with its plaintiffs practice, according to Schutz. The IP group does about 30 percent of cases for plaintiffs on a contingency basis and has pulled in many sizable awards for its clients, including a $103 million award for Fonar Corp. in its patent case against General Electric, Schutz said. These cases tend to be very economical and we make more money on contingency-fee cases than other cases. But these cases have gotten much tougher in the last two years for plaintiffs as it seems like defendants have unlimited checkbooks, he said. While the practice has no set plans for growing its ranks to a specific number, it is continuing to seek out laterals at the associate level and is doing select lateral hiring at the partner level. All Content 2003-2009, Portfolio Media, Inc.