Top Ten Law Firms in Technology Center 2400

Top 10Technology Center 2400 covers the technologies of computer networks, multiplex communication, video distribution, and cybersecurity. In terms of average time to allowance, it is the slowest-moving technology center, with most applications waiting approximately 3.5 years before allowance. When it comes to average allowance rate, TC 2400 is lower than the USPTO at large, at 62% and 71%, respectively. As the home of art units concerning cryptography and cybersecurity, many of the patent applications in TC 2400 are on the front line of the fight against cyber crime, an increasingly large and growing problem in the United States.

Below is a ranking of the top 10 most successful firms at obtaining patents in TC 2400. To calculate these rankings, we considered firms having at least 100 disposed applications in the technology center. A disposed application is one that is either allowed or abandoned; we did not consider pending applications. We then divided the number of allowed applications by the total number of allowed and abandoned applications to calculate a firm’s percentage of applications allowed.

1.  Harrity & Harrity LLP (97.8%) 

Harrity & Harrity

In first place is Harrity & Harrity LLP, a boutique patent firm located in Fairfax, VA, providing patent prosecution and counseling services. At 97.8%, Harrity has the highest allowance rate among all firms with at least 100 disposed applications in TC 2400. All of Harrity’s partners are former patent examiners and its attorneys focus the majority of their practice on patent prosecution, which pays off through an exceptionally high allowance rate in TC 2400.

2.  Lowenstein Sandler LLP (97.4%)

Lowenstein Sandler

Lowenstein Sandler is a large, full-service law firm with offices in New York, Silicon Valley, Washington, DC, and Roseland, NJ, and has an allowance rate of 97.4% in TC 2400. The Tech Group at Lowenstein Sandler founded and runs VentureCrush, a series of unique events and networks that bring together tech industry founders with VC, growth equity, PE, and angel investors to provide community-building experiences to the innovation industry.

3.  Clements Bernard PLLC (97.2%)
Clements Bernard

Clements Bernard is a boutique IP firm located in Charlotte and has an allowance rate of 97.2% in TC 2400. Despite its small size, Clements Bernard offers a wide range of IP services, including patent preparation and prosecution, trademark and copyright registration, and complex business litigation.

4.  Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch (97.1%)


Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch is a large, full-service law firm with offices in San Diego, Silicon Valley, Phoenix, and Austin, and its allowance rate in TC 2400 is 97.1%. Its intellectual property practice is split into two practice groups, one focused on prosecution and one focused on litigation. Founded in 1946, Procopio is the oldest firm on our list and has developed an extensive network of community relationships in its hometown of San Diego over the years by supporting over 250 local organizations devoted to arts and culture, charity, and education.

5.  Myers Wolin (96.7%)

Myers Wolin

Myers Wolin is a boutique IP firm offering a full range of IP services with offices in New York and Morristown, NJ. Its allowance rate in TC 2400 is 96.7%. Myers Wolin has demonstrated a strong commitment to New York City’s startup ecosystem by providing a Patent Counsel in Residence for the Zahn Center and the Next Top Makers program, organizations that incubate and nurture early stage companies.

6.  Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP (95.7%)

Lerner David

Lerner David is a boutique IP firm providing a full range of IP services, with offices in Westfield, NJ and Guangzhou, China, and has an allowance rate of 95.7% in TC 2400. Lerner David is noteworthy for representing Gordon Gould, widely regarded as the inventor of the laser, in his years-long battle with the USPTO to obtain patents for the laser and related technologies.

7.  Patterson + Sheridan LLP (95.5%)

Patterson + Sheridan

Patterson + Sheridan is a mid-sized IP boutique firm with offices in Houston, Dallas, Silicon Valley, Shrewsbury, NJ, and Greensboro, NC. It has an allowance rate of 95.5% in TC 2400. Patterson + Sheridan has demonstrated a commitment to international clients, with 14 bilingual attorneys fluent in languages including Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese, Spanish, Greek, German, Hindi, Farsi, and Bosnian.

8 & 9.  (Tie) Withrow & Terranova PLLC (94.9%)

Withrow & Terranova

Withrow & Terranova is a small IP boutique firm located in Cary, NC, in the Research Triangle area of the state. It has an allowance rate of 94.9% in TC 2400. With its proximity to the Research Triangle Park, one of the premier research parks in the world, Withrow & Terranova focuses its practice on patent prosecution and counseling to high technology clients in the electronic, telecommunication, semiconductor, software, biomedical, and mechanical technologies sectors.

8 & 9.  (Tie) Allen Dyer Doppelt Milbrath & Gilchrist PA (94.9%)

ADDMG is a small boutique firm with offices in Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Winter Springs, FL, and Melbourne, FL providing a full range of IP services. Its allowance rate in TC 2400 is 94.9%. With its deep connection to Florida and many offices around the state, it has represented such Florida-centric clients as Panama Jack and the Florida Department of Citrus.

10.  McClure Qualey & Rodack LLP (94.4%)

McClure Qualey

McClure Qualey & Rodack is a small IP boutique firm offering a full range of IP services located in Atlanta. Its allowance rate in TC 2400 is 94.4%. Its attorneys have experience in a wide range of technology areas, some of which include cryogenic systems, foundry services, aviation systems, and smartphones.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

4 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    August 19, 2015 10:16 am

    >>top 10 most successful firms at obtaining patents in TC 2400.

    I agree with the bloggers above. Allowance rate doesn’t tell you much. Quality of prosecution is more important. And as David said some clients only want quality claims and others just want to finish out any application with an allowance no matter how narrow the claims.

  • [Avatar for Mark]
    August 11, 2015 10:34 am

    Is an allowance rate that high a good thing? How narrow are the claims they are getting?

  • [Avatar for David Stein]
    David Stein
    August 10, 2015 03:52 pm

    1,000% agreeing with Curious (especially about appeals).

    Several companies instruct their counsel to prosecute as follows:

    1) Pursue broad coverage – sometimes requiring a trip to the PTAB when the examiner can’t find good art, but doesn’t want to give us the claim scope that we’re entitled to get. (And that happens quite a bit.)

    2) Check back in with the inventor team to verify that the claims are still valuable. Technology fields often change direction, and sometimes rapidly. Remember all of that research about WAP, about automatically downscaling the content of web pages for devices with stripped-down web browsers? Very valuable in 2005; not at all valuable in 2008, thanks to the iPhone and its full-featured browser.

    Many clients do not want patents for inventions that are no longer along the path of technology. Compare the long pendency of patent examination with the rapid pace of technology – this is not an unusual scenario.

    3) Give an honest assessment of the value of the claim scope that is available. If the examiner has done a good job and has found prior art that forces a narrowing of the claims, the commercial value of the narrowed patent may not be worth the issue and maintenance fees. In those cases, we are instructed to use our best judgment and to recommend abandonment of the application.

    We’re aware that some clients and firms do not have that perspective – they always want to “win” with an allowance, even if it means that absolutely no one will ever infringe the two-page-long claims. That might be a reasonable strategy (especially for clients that want to build their patent portfolio rapidly), but assuming that it is *always* better is not valid.

  • [Avatar for Curious]
    August 10, 2015 10:58 am

    Below is a ranking of the top 10 most successful firms at obtaining patents in TC 2400. … We then divided the number of allowed applications by the total number of allowed and abandoned applications to calculate a firm’s percentage of applications allowed.

    Meh … interesting information but what is the point you are trying to make?

    Allowance rates, while partially dependent upon the law firms, says a lot more about the clients than the firms? For example:
    Does the client want to fight tooth and nail for broad claims or will they accept any allowable subject matter?
    Does the client perform a search before filing?
    How rigorous is the vetting process by the client before filing?
    Where does the client draw the line as to what disclosures they file applications on and what disclosures they don’t?
    What specific technologies areas are they in (e.g., is there a lot of competition or is it limited — and very known)?
    How quick is the client in abandoning?

    The answers to all of these questions impact the allowance rates. Frankly, when I’m seeing allowance rates of over 95%, I’m thinking there is meat being left on the bone. It really comes down to what do the claims look like? Are they narrow or broad?

    Getting to my meat left on the bone comment, only 2 of the 10 firms have significant appeal activity. IMHO, if you aren’t aggressively appealing, you are not getting the broadest possible claims.

    Just my 2 cents.