A webinar on our research for 2017 firm rankings and practitioner listings was held yesterday at 3pm GMT. The podcast is now available so you can listen to it whenever convenient. You need to be registered on BrightTALK to access it.
Below are our answers to the questions received from participants, some of which have been slightly edited for clarity and may have been addressed during the webinar. They are in no particular order. All the links and documents for the 2017 research can be found here. Please also review the information on our FAQs page.
(1) Is it possible for you to include the firm’s BD/Marketing contact on your communications with the attorneys you reach out to for the survey?
Yes we can. Please inform the researcher for your jurisdiction. See contact details here.
(2) Are “opposing firm” and “lead opposing firm practitioner” mandatory fields?
No. Please note that providing this information helps with credibility and can impress the researcher. The researcher may well pick up this information from the other side anyway.
(3) If we have more of a focus on patent work, can we take case study slots from the other sections to provide more patent case studies, or are we limited to 10 for patents?
Please provide your top 10 patent case studies in the online questionnaire and send extra ones directly to the researcher.
(4) Why is there a limit of three partners and three non-partners in the case studies section?
It just helps us to quickly identify the most relevant and key practitioners involved in the work. However, you may list more if you think this is absolutely essential.
(5) Do you see the topic of diversity being a part of the submission process in the future?
Possibly. Managing IP supports IP Inclusive, a diversity initiative by IP professionals in the UK. Question 2(a) in the questionnaire is where you can tell us about your diversity initiatives or achievements. It may be considered, among other things, for Managing IP awards.
(6) Do you have research which shows how general counsel are using these rankings?
We gather market intelligence from our research. See our 2016 in-house counsel report here.
(7) Is the revenue question specific to our IP practice or firm-wide? And will firms be marked down if they withhold this information for confidential reasons?
It’s revenue for your IP practice. This question is optional and won’t affect your rankings.
(8) Are you going to publish rankings for the new features or have they been included to obtain additional information?
Our aim is to enhance our publication with new features each year but this depends on the amount and quality of information we obtain. Therefore please provide us with all the information required, if available.
(9) With regard to interviews, will the researchers come to us to schedule them, or do we need to reach out to you to suggest who we'd like to be interviewed?
The process is that researchers reach out to firms. However, we like to see firms being proactive so please do feel free to get in touch with the researcher for your jurisdiction for an interview. Please also note interview slots are limited so not all firms will get an interview. Not getting an interview will not affect your rankings. The least you can do is to provide us with as much information as possible in your firm questionnaire.
(10) Are the Top 250 Women in IP selected every year?
Yes. Previously the list only recognised practitioners in the US but it’s now global.
(11) Do you consider post-grant proceedings for the prosecution category?
Yes. Our prosecution category covers all pre-and post-grant work, from drafting to contentious proceeedings, at the IP Office.
(12) Will firms get assigned a researcher so that they know who to send any follow-up information to after submissions are in?
Please see our global team of researchers and their respective countries at https://www.ipstars.com/general/contact If you have any difficulties or questions please contact Jennifer Ruther at firstname.lastname@example.org (for firms in the USA and Canada) and Kingsley Egbuonu at Kingsley.email@example.com (for firms outside the USA and Canada).
(13) We previously submitted a High Court case as one of our case studies but the matter is now in the Court of Appeal and we’re still handling it. Can we use the Court of Appeal proceedings as one of our case studies this year?
Yes. However, it is best to provide this as a case study after the matter has been concluded in the Court of Appeal. Generally, we allow updates to case studies previously submitted as long as the details are new.
(14) Is the information we provide meant to be based on the last 12 months, or the last financial year or calendar year?
Last 12 months. Our starting point is the deadline month for firm submission in the previous year. For example, the starting month for your case studies for the 2017 research should be November 2015. The crucial thing is that the case studies must be new.
(15) Why do you have two batches for your interviews?
It is because of the way we publish our firm rankings: trade mark rankings in February, patents in March and Copyright in April, but firms shouldn’t be too concerned with this. The most important thing to note is that researchers will be scheduling and conducting interviews between September and February. A researcher may decide to continue interviews, and of course research, beyond February.
(16) Which of these is most important to you: client feedback, firm interviews and firm submission?
These are all important and considered.
(17) Do you take into account what other directories say and IP news stories which have not been provided by the firms themselves?
Our researchers conduct independent desk research and take into account all relevant information before reaching any decision.
(18) Should firms refer to other legal directories and awards in the submission and interviews?
Whatever a firm wishes to say will be taken into account.
(19) How do we submit firm news to you?
We will soon contact firms about this.
(20) Who should we contact if we’re unable to get a response from a researcher?
Our researchers handle a lot of information and emails so there is a chance that your email may not be dealt with quickly. If you experience difficulties, or where a researcher is unavailable to answer your question, please contact Jennifer Ruther at firstname.lastname@example.org (for firms in the USA and Canada) and Kingsley Egbuonu at Kingsley.email@example.com (for firms outside the USA and Canada). You can also copy in firstname.lastname@example.org.
(21) Will my firm be at a disadvantage if we provide five client referees?
No. We ask firms to provide “up to” 15 client referees. Most importantly, please make sure the referees you are giving us are happy to provide feedback on your behalf and are aware we will be contacting them.
(22) I would like to help our lawyers complete the Individual Practitioner Survey. When will the Word version of the survey be made available online?
Unlike the Firm Survey, we don’t think the Individual Practitioner Survey requires advance preparation. The questions are fairly straightforward, and the answers are best known to the practitioner. It is much easier and efficient for them to complete it online.
The current IP Stars will get an email from us before or on November 14 requesting confirmation that they are happy with the practice area data we hold on them. The email will include the individual’s IP Star ID which should be included so we can correctly and easily match the practitioner with his or her questionnaire. Anyone who wishes to change his or her data will then have to complete the practice area section of the questionnaire.