EIP tops rankings in FT list of Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms

No items found.
​
June 17, 2021
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

EIP has today topped the rankings in a special report commissioned by the FT of Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms. This is the third year the FT has prepared this joint report with Statista and each year EIP’s rankings have improved.

The report covers six broad sectors: Biotechnology & Food;Chemistry & Pharmaceuticals; Electrical Engineering; IT & Software; Materials & Nanotechnology; and Mechanical Engineering, and this year EIP has been recognised with gold ranking in all six categories.

A wide-ranging survey was sent to over 10,000 European patent attorneys both in law firms and working in-house as well as clients. After analysing the 3,200 recommendations received from clients and peers 168 firms are featured in the overall list.

The full report can be viewed here.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​