LexHow we rank ITC Section 337 practice.
Six performance signals drawn from the ITC EDIS docket. Investigations are sparse and high-stakes — the methodology weights outcomes accordingly.
2026 FinalLast updated May 27, 2026
The ITC §337 bar is small. Roughly 60 to 90 new investigations launch per year. Most firms appear in fewer than 5 investigations across a 5-year window. The methodology compensates by weighting outcome performance heavily, rather than raw volume.
Every signal traces back to the ITC’s public EDIS docket system. We track all four investigation phases — institution, evidentiary hearing, initial determination, Commission review — and the post-conclusion enforcement record.
Because the investigation count is small, we publish Top 100 (not Top 250) rankings, with percentile bands below that.
Six signals. Six weights.
Outcomes dominate. Volume is a tiebreaker.
Investigation volume
Total investigations as complainant counsel or respondent counsel. Entry threshold and tiebreaker only.
Outcome performance
Violation findings (complainant) or no-violation findings (respondent). Exclusion orders obtained or avoided. The dominant signal.
Client & tech breadth
Diversity across complainants/respondents and technology classifications. Penalizes single-client dependence.
Success rate
Win rate at evidentiary hearing, normalized for ALJ severity. Settlement-favorable terms count as partial wins.
Procedural efficiency
Time to evidentiary hearing, motion-practice efficiency, and consolidation strategy. Reflects ITC pace mastery.
Strategy quality
Claim construction wins at Markman, domestic-industry strength, and remedy-phase positioning.
How the math works.
Every signal is normalized within a peer cohort, then weighted into a composite score.
Cohort-relative percentiles, not absolute counts
Within each ranking, firms and attorneys are grouped into two streams (complainant practice, respondent practice) plus three firm-size brackets. Inside each cohort, every signal is converted to a percentile rank.
This is why a 30-attorney specialty boutique can outrank a global AmLaw firm on the same signal — volume alone doesn’t win the comparison.
Weighted blend, capped at 100
Each signal’s percentile is multiplied by its weight, then summed. Final scores are rescaled to a 0–100 range so cross-cohort comparison is meaningful.
Worked example: (0.84 × 30) + (0.72 × 20) + …
What’s included.
- Firms with at least 3 investigations in the 5-year window
- All Section 337 technology areas, no carve-outs
- Both complainant and respondent counsel (separate streams)
- Lead counsel, co-counsel, and significant motion-practice counsel
- Settled investigations weighted by settlement timing & terms
What we don’t measure.
- District court enforcement of exclusion orders (counted separately under patent litigation)
- Customs and CBP work post-exclusion
- Pure regulatory or trade-policy work
- ITC anti-dumping or countervailing duty practice (different statute)
- Reputation, peer surveys, or AmLaw ratings
What changed — and when.
Methodology changes are dated and archived. The 2026 Final edition remains accessible exactly as published.