IAM Magazine: Counting on Quality

For the March/April 2010 Issue of IAM Magazine, Ocean Tomo PatentRatings® ranked law firms based on the quality of patents they have prosecuted on behalf of their clients.

Private practice attorneys provide significant value-added to their clients by helping them to secure quality patents. An exclusive IAM/Ocean Tomo PatentRatings collaboration reveals which U.S. law firms are doing just that.

Methodology

To create the rankings, Ocean Tomo PatentRatings first selected the top 50 law firms according to the number of U.S. utility patents issued over the trailing three years within each chosen industry sector, and then also selected the top 100 law firms overall.

To segment the law firms by the four representative industry groups and overall, we used patents that have both a prosecuting attorney on the issued patent, and an assignee. Patents that have no assignee on the record were excluded. The resulting sets were then sorted based on the average IPQ score of those patents, top down.

Ocean Tomo PatentRatings then used a regression model to calculate a raw probability score for a patent. Raw scores represent the simple probability that a patent will be maintained for the full statutory term. For convenience, these raw scores are mathematically adjusted to provide a normalized mean or nominal expected score of 100. The adjusted score, dubbed IPQ, is akin to the familiar intelligence quotient or IQ used to score human intelligence. Thus, a score of 100 on the IPQ scale generally corresponds to an expected normal or median quality (average expected maintenance rate). An IPQ higher than 100 indicates above-average quality (higher expected maintenance rate), while an IPQ lower than 100 indicates below average quality (lower expected maintenance rate). Of course, as with IQ, the IPQ score provides only part of the equation for determining patent quality/value. Thus, a high IPQ does not guarantee high quality/value and vice versa. It only establishes a statistical correlation based on the body of available data.

 

-----------------------
All data accessible through OceanTomo.com/ratings was prepared by Ocean Tomo based on proprietary algorithms and other statistical information provided by PatentRatings, LLC. All scores, ratings and ranks are statistical in nature and are based on publicly available data. They are not based on, nor do they consider any legal opinions or other professional opinions, advice or other information (public or otherwise) that may have bearing on the subject matter of the analysis. No direct statistical correlation has been established between IPQ scores and "fair market value," royalty rates, validity, enforceability or infringement and IPQ scores should not be relied upon to prove or establish the existence or probability of such facts. No direct statistical correlation has been established between Relevance scores and patentability or materiality, and Relevance scores should not be relied upon to prove, establish or support any opinion of the materiality or patentability of one patent in view of another. Some of the information and services provided by this website may be covered by one or more of the following U.S. patents: 6,556,992; 7,657,476; 7,716,226; and other patents pending. Copyright 2001-2010 PatentRatings, LLC. Copyright 2011 Ocean Tomo, LLC. All rights reserved.

OCEANTOMO.COM/RATINGS DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY LEGAL ADVICE. NONE OF THE DATA, INFORMATION, ANALYSES OR REPRESENTATIONS THEREOF ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THIS SITE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE

Ocean Tomo PatentRatings Legal