|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | PCT
| | | | SURVEY
| | | | | | | | |RANKINGS
||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The biggest firms for
PCT work this year
Managing IP’s annual survey ranks the top PCT filers in the major
patenting jurisdictions. Data compiled by RWS inovia
T
he tables over the following pages listing the top PCT
filers rank firms according to the number of PCT applications that they filed that were due for national
stage entry during 2016.
The tables are based on details of PCT applications published
on WIPO’s website. To compile the tables, PCT applications
with a priority date between July 1 2013 and June 30 2014 were
extracted. These correspond to applications due to enter the
national phase from January 1 to December 31 this year.
Once extracted, these applications were sorted according to the
law firm or patent agency that filed the PCT application, based
on the “agent name” and “agent address” categories in the PCT
form. A manual checking process ensured that all cases filed by
each firm were included, even where it used different names or
addresses during the period in question.
The firms are listed in order of the number of applications filed
in their jurisdiction. Firms with offices in more than one
country may be included in the table in each jurisdiction. Firms
are compiled based on how they are listed on the patent
application.
The worldwide table ranks the firms with the most PCT applications globally. This compiles the filings of a firm’s various
offices around the world, increasing the ranking for firms in
several locations.
Managing IP acknowledges the help of RWS inovia, in compiling and verifying the data on which the tables are based. Comparable statistics relating to the number of PCT applications
inovia will introduce into the national stage this year are included in the relevant tables. Although not a law firm, it is by far
the biggest service provider for national stage filings. Other
service providers also introduce PCT applications into the national phase, but their numbers are not included here.
The tables are provided for readers’ information only. Managing
IP does not recommend or endorse any particular firms for
PCT or other work. The arrows in each table indicate the firms’
relative positions compared to 2014.
M A N A G I N G I P. C O M Y E A R E N D 2 0 1 6
NEED A CREATIVE ADVIPSOR?
Between you and your ideas, we’ll find the spark for
brilliant business opportunities. From IP strategy,
legal services and analysis to patents, trademarks,
design and copyright, we help illuminate the vast
potential in your creation. www.awapatent.com
PCT SURVEY RANKINGS
EUROPE
RANKING
1 u
2 p
3 q
4 q
5 q
6
NEW ENTRY
7 q
8 q
9 q
PCT APPS
12 p
13 q
14 q
15 q
16 q
17 p
18 q
19 p
FIRM NAME
RANKING
PCT APPS
FIRM NAME
1 u
217
Awapatent
131
Zacco Sweden
118
Ström & Gulliksson
117
Kransell & Wennborg
104
Valea
100
Brann
56
Bergenstråhle & Partners
37
Hynell Patenttjänst
35
Ehrner & Delmar
32
Aros Patent
627
Marks & Clerk
409
Grünecker
396
REGIMBEAU
372
Cabinet Plasseraud
353
LAVOIX
350
Boehmert & Boehmert
320
Epping Hermann Fischer
308
Cabinet Beau de Loménie
8 p
293
V.O.
9
10 NEW ENTRY 278
11 q
SWEDEN
GEVERS
265
Awapatent
246
Harrison Goddard Foote
243
Dehns
237
Berggren
230
Bugnion
227
BREVALEX
216
Jacobacci & Partners
207
Studio Torta
200
D Young & Co
20 NEW ENTRY 194
2 u
3 p
4 p
5 q
6 q
7 q
NEW ENTRY
10 q
NONY
M A N A G I N G I P. C O M Y E A R E N D 2 0 1 6