Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine has undertaken an extensive research process to compile the listings for this publication. While acknowledging information gathered for the first edition of the guide, over a four-month period we conducted research from the ground up via telephone interviews and email exchanges with attorneys at law and patent attorneys involved in patent and technology licensing. They provided extensive information on their individual practices, recent work and other firms and individuals that stood out for their expertise in patent and technology licensing in the jurisdictions covered in this publication. In addition, we spoke with a number of client referees provided by participating firms, who commented on the practices and individuals that they had worked with. The direct quotes included in the IAM Licensing 250 editorial are drawn from these exchanges.

The licensing market remains challenging to research. The generally non-confrontational nature of licensing work, the extreme confidentiality that characterises many such transactions and the trend towards using in-house counsel in order to reduce costs have contributed to create a market that can at times seem opaque. However, we believe that the feedback we have received, combined with the in-depth research undertaken, allows us to identify those practitioners who stand out from the licensing crowd in the jurisdictions we cover.

Individuals qualify for listing solely on the judgements we make as a research team. The richer the feedback from peers and clients, the greater an individual’s visibility in the marketplace; the more noteworthy their work, the greater their specialisation in licensing is likely to be. Practitioners boasting positive feedback, top-drawer work and a healthy degree of specialisation in licensing (relative to their own market) are those who made the cut. While last year we concentrated our research on attorneys at law, this year we opened up the research process to patent attorneys; however, outside of Germany, where patent attorneys play an approximately equivalent role to their legally qualified peers, few patent attorneys attracted substantial feedback from commentators. If you are a patent attorney with a significant patent licensing practice, we would like to hear from you, to continue to build upon this aspect of our publication.

Finally, the IAM Licensing 250 is not organised by bands within jurisdictions. Instead, all those featured are listed in alphabetical order. In instances where certain individuals were clearly ahead of the pack, they have been placed in separate “Highly recommended” tables, distinguishing them from their “Recommended” peers. We have also included “Luminaries” – individuals who have scaled back the extent of their day-to-day work, yet remain important figures in the marketplace. However, while we have every confidence in our research, we do not believe that it is currently possible for us to offer numerically tiered rankings. It is our hope that further research will allow us to achieve our goal of creating comprehensive rankings for this vital area of IP practice.

Unless otherwise noted on the ranking table, individuals are located in their country’s capital city. In US chapters, they are located in their state’s business centre.

Alastair Mitchell
Head of Research
IAM Licensing 250