LexHow we rank patent prosecution.
Six performance signals drawn from over 20 extracted prosecution data points in the USPTO PAIR record. Every weight, every threshold, every cohort definition is here.
2026 FinalLast updated May 27, 2026
Patent prosecution rankings should measure how well a firm prosecutes, not how much it files. Filing volume alone rewards mass-filers and obscures real performance. The LexDana methodology fixes this by pairing volume with five performance signals — success rate, efficiency, breadth, participation, and claim quality — each normalized within a peer cohort.
Every signal traces back to publicly accessible USPTO PAIR records. The same data is available to anyone with a Patent Center login. The math is reproducible, the weights are published, and the cohorts are defined explicitly below.
We rank the Top 250 firms and attorneys. Below that line, results are returned as percentile bands instead of integer ranks — precision drops off, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
Six signals. Six weights.
Each signal is normalized within practice cohort, then blended into a composite score.
Filing volume
Total applications handled and patents issued within the measurement window. Used as an entry threshold and as a tiebreaker on otherwise close composite scores.
Participation frequency
Consistency of engagement across the full prosecution lifecycle — from filing through to issuance, RCE, or final abandonment.
Client & technology breadth
Diversity across applicants, art units, and technology areas, balanced against depth in a chosen practice focus.
Success rate
Application-level and claim-level allowance rates, normalized for examiner severity. The single highest-weighted signal in the index.
Efficiency
Average pendency, office-action count per allowance, RCE rate, and extension-of-time frequency.
Claim quality
Word-count delta and structural change between original and issued claims. A proxy for prosecution-induced narrowing.
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 five practice-size brackets (10–25, 25–50, 50–100, 100–250, 250+ attorneys). 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: (0.82 × 25) + (0.67 × 20) + …
What’s included.
- Firms or attorneys with at least 50 issued patents in the 5-year window
- All technology centers (1600–3700) at the USPTO
- Both utility and design applications, weighted separately
- Continuations, divisionals, and CIPs treated as distinct applications
- PCT national-stage entries treated as US-origin for the firm of record
What we don’t measure.
- Reputation, peer votes, or client testimonials
- Pro bono work (separate Patexia recognition)
- Pre-grant publication activity without issuance
- Foreign filings outside US national stage
- Quality of post-grant strategy (covered in PTAB methodology)
What changed — and when.
Methodology changes are dated and archived. The 2026 Final edition remains accessible exactly as published.