By Pamela Sherrid
IP Law & Business/January 2008

Reprints & Permissions

Most law firm beauty contests are aimed at winning the nod of a coveted client-and a victory quickly translates directly into billable hours. The rewards of winning the contest for IP Litigation Department of the Year are less immediate-but also real.

That's why more than 20 firms vied for the honor, a response that we humbly appreciate. The process began last August, when our sibling publication The American Lawyer invited every firm in The Am Law 200 to compete in the magazine's fourth Litigation Department of the Year contest, which is held every two years. Each firm could also choose to compete in one litigation specialty-product liability, labor and employment, or intellectual property. Once again, IP was the most popular specialty choice.

We asked the firms to describe their significant IP achievements between January 2006 and July 2007 in several key areas: pretrial (e.g., summary judgments), Markman hearings, trial, appeals, arbitrations, settlements, and patent interferences. Then the hefty applications started flowing in. Some were well-organized in cool-looking binders, others were more scruffy.

But the serious business of winnowing the applicants was based entirely on a firm's achievements for its clients. We were four judges: myself (the editor of IP Law & Business), staff writer Xenia Kobylarz, and American Lawyer staffers Ross Todd and Nate Raymond. After we weeded out the weaker entries, the writers spent hours on the telephone talking to clients and opposing counsel and learning more about the firms that remained. Three firms were clear contenders; deciding on the fourth finalist among a handful of strong candidates took a bit more discussion. Once we agreed on the finalists (whose stories here are in alphabetical, not merit, order), we invited the litigators at all four firms to New York for a 90-minute interview. Each firm was given a half hour to make a presentation; the rest of the time was allotted to a free discussion of the firm's victories and disappointments.

That was clearly the fun part-for us, and also, I hope, for the lawyers who participated. What emerged was a vivid image of each firm's performance, and its unique character. You'll see what I mean in the stories that follow.

The Winner: