Our Juristat ranking considers both volume and performance. We based the rankings on how well a firm performed in three key metrics over a 12-month period. These metrics are:

  • Number of applications filed
  • Allowance rate
  • Average number of office actions before allowance

The metrics are based on public applications disposed (or in the case of the first metric, applications filed) between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, accounting for the 18-month publication delay. To qualify for inclusion, a firm must have filed a minimum of 100 applications in the tech center during that time period. For our analysis, we attributed applications to the firm listed on the application at the time of disposition. We also excluded foreign priority applications and design applications from this analysis.

We narrowed the field in each technology center by first identifying the top ten firms in each of three categories – allowance rate, average office actions before allowance, and volume of applications filed. As you look at each tech center’s rankings, you see the the top ten in each of those three key metrics, as well as our overall ranking – the Juristat Rank. This overall rank was calculated by taking into account the firm’s rank for the key metric, as well as rewarding firms who ranked for more than one category. This gives us a better picture of which firms have the most well-rounded performance in each tech center. 

A caveat, of course. This method is but one way to measure a firm’s performance and is not intended to be definitive. In fact, you should not rely solely on a firm’s filing volume, allowance rate, or number of office actions as a measure of success - as that doesn’t necessarily account for patent quality. Beyond that, many clients value timeliness, communication, retention of top talent, or adoption of new technologies – more qualitative measures we can’t yet analyze with data.