LexHow we rank PTAB practice.
Six performance signals drawn from PTAB E2E. IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings, with petitioner and patent owner streams ranked separately.
Draft · Coming 2026Last updated May 21, 2026
PTAB rankings have to handle two structurally different practices. Petitioner counsel are trying to invalidate claims. Patent owner counsel are trying to preserve them. The same firm can rank in the Top 10 on one side and not in the Top 100 on the other.
Every signal traces back to PTAB E2E, the Board’s public docket system. We track the full proceeding lifecycle: petition, POPR, institution decision, trial, motion to amend, FWD, rehearing, and appeal.
This is a draft methodology. The Fintiv and Sotera procedural-challenge weighting is the most contested component — the current draft assigns it 15% but feedback is welcome before the final 2026 edition.
Six signals. Six weights.
Outcomes dominate. Procedural-challenge strategy is the most-discussed weighting decision.
Petition volume
Total petitions filed (petitioner stream) or POPRs filed (patent owner stream) in the window.
Institution rate
For petitioners: institution-granted rate. For patent owners: denial-of-institution rate. Normalized for art unit and panel composition.
FWD outcomes
Claims cancelled (petitioner) or claims preserved (patent owner) on Final Written Decision. The dominant signal.
Procedural challenges
Fintiv discretionary denial, Sotera stipulations, GAO challenges. How well a firm uses or defends against procedural off-ramps.
Motion to amend / joinder
MTA success (patent owner) or MTA opposition success (petitioner). Joinder strategy where parallel petitions exist.
CAFC appeal outcomes
How FWDs hold up on appeal. Linked to the Federal Circuit methodology but credited here to the PTAB counsel of record.
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 (petitioner counsel, patent owner counsel) plus four 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: (0.81 × 25) + (0.74 × 20) + …
What’s included.
- Firms with at least 15 PTAB matters in the window
- IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings (Derivation excluded as too rare)
- Petitioner counsel and patent owner counsel tracked separately
- Lead counsel, backup counsel, and significant motion-practice counsel
- Reexams excluded (different statute, different methodology)
What we don’t measure.
- Ex parte reexamination work (rare and procedurally distinct)
- Patent prosecution of the challenged patent (separate ranking)
- PTAB rule-making, public comments, or amicus filings
- Parallel district court litigation (covered in patent litigation methodology)
- Pure consultative work without entering as counsel of record
What changed — and when.
Methodology changes are dated and archived. The Draft v0.3 edition remains accessible exactly as published.