IPRATE Methodology

IPRATE currently covers 32 European countries. The ratings are computed from 21,467,467 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices, covering 599,343 IP firms and 68,412 attorneys. Of those, 23,388 firms and 11,987 attorneys met the evidence thresholds and carry a published rating. Current data release: October 2026; ratings are recomputed and republished with each data release.

Data sources: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Patent Office (EPO), and national IP offices. Ratings are never sold or sponsored: no surveys, no paid listings.

IP firm is any entity representing unrelated clients in IP filings, regardless of whether it is a law firm, attorney, agency or another business type; exclude self-filings and intra-group representation.

This activity-based definition accommodates differences in national legislation. A professional title, legal form, bar membership or directory listing is not a prerequisite. Representation within the same corporate group remains intra-group representation even when the representative is a formally separate entity.

We compare like with like. Ratings are produced separately by country, by practice area (trademarks, designs, patents), by filing track where applicable (national or European), and by time view.

We focus on work done for applicants from the same country as the rated attorney or firm. In simple terms, Lithuanian professionals are mainly judged on Lithuanian client work, German professionals on German client work, and so on.

When a matter has several applicants or several classes, we avoid letting one large filing behave like many unrelated cases. Credit is shared so the ranking reflects sustained practice, not just unusually bulky filings.

Every published ranking can be shown in two time views.

• Long-term: the broad historical view of a professional or firm's track record.
• Emerging: a recent-window view focused on the last five years, designed to highlight current momentum.

These two views answer different questions. Long-term reflects depth and consistency over time. Emerging highlights more recent activity and results.

The core rating is built from six evidence-based pillars.

• Experience: how much real case work is handled.
• Initial success: how often mature cases reach a positive first outcome.
• Relative efficiency: how quickly successful matters move compared with peers in the same market.
• Asset durability: how often granted rights stay alive long enough to show lasting value.
• Renewal or maintenance survival: whether rights are kept in force.
• Local applicant share: how much of the work comes from the home market rather than mostly foreign inflow.

We do not compare raw counts from a very large market to raw counts from a small one. Instead, each attorney or firm is compared against peers in the same country, practice area, filing track, and time view.

That means a strong result in a smaller market can still be recognized, even when the absolute number of filings is lower than in a larger jurisdiction.

We also soften very small samples toward the middle. A handful of lucky cases should not instantly create a top ranking, and a handful of unlucky ones should not destroy a solid practice.

Not every name in the source data is published with a rating. We only publish when there is enough evidence to support a meaningful comparison. Attorneys and firms must meet minimum activity thresholds to appear in the public rankings.

That means we check both activity volume and whether enough core measures are applicable for that person or firm. Very sparse or one-off activity is filtered out rather than dressed up as a precise ranking.

Each published result also receives a confidence grade (A through C) based on how much filing data supports the rating. Attorneys with thin data are shrunk toward the cohort median via Bayesian credibility adjustment.

We reward sustained practice more than isolated bursts. A professional who appears only occasionally over a long period is less likely to be published or to rank strongly than someone with a steadier pattern of work.

For trademarks and designs, long inactive gaps can reduce the final result and, in extreme cases, suppress publication. Patents are handled more carefully because the life cycle is longer and slower.

When the measures are combined, each published firm and attorney is given one of two public ratings inside its peer group. The top quarter is Top Rated. Every other rated firm and attorney is Rated.

A rating is always read inside the peer group shown. A Top Rated firm in a small market may file far fewer applications than a Top Rated firm in a large one.

Every rated firm has already passed IPRATE's evidence thresholds. The rating ranks firms within this group. A firm earns a rating only when it passes the volume, consistency and confidence thresholds. Most firms in each market do not pass them.

Two labels can appear next to a rating. A label describes a rated firm. The rating stays the same.

• Fast Growing is given to the rated firms that grew fastest in a country and practice area. We compare each firm's filings in the last 12 complete months with the 12 months before. Patent filings become public long after they are made, so for patents we compare the 12 months that end two years earlier. A firm's filings must rise, and rise faster than its market. It needs at least 10 filings in the earlier 12 months. A register counts only when its total filings stay steady between the two periods. Up to five firms carry the label, and never more than a tenth of the rated firms.
• Specialist is given to a firm in the top quarter for filings in one class. The class must make up at least a tenth of the firm's own work, with at least 10 filings. At least eight firms must qualify in that class. Nice classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 are left out, because they appear in a large share of all trademark filings.

IPRATE intentionally rates only a fraction of firms in each market. Typically only about 10–20% of firms filing in a country meet our minimum thresholds and appear in the public rankings. The rest drop out at one of the selection stages below.

Common reasons a firm may not be listed:

• The firm filed fewer than 10 cases (cumulative) or 3 cases (emerging) in the country / vertical.
• The firm's filings concentrate in a single class or client, producing thin cross-pillar coverage.
• The firm's data produced only a grade D confidence score.
• Individual attorneys filing in their own name under a solo practice are rated as firms (not separately as attorneys). Solo attorneys may still appear with their firm rating.
• Applicants filing their own IP (self-filers) are excluded. IPRATE rates professional representatives, not in-house filing activity.

If you believe your firm should appear but does not, please contact [email protected].

Where direct firm-level case attribution is strong enough, firms are rated from their own attributed work.

In some trademark and design situations, linked attorney evidence also helps build a firm view.

Claimed profile owners may improve approved presentation details such as descriptive text, website links, and public-facing media.

Those updates can refresh how a profile is presented, but they do not alter the underlying score, rating tier, confidence grade, or methodology.

Any change that would affect the rating itself belongs to the scoring pipeline, not to profile editing.

Quoting IPRATE ratings and rankings with attribution is expressly permitted for non-bulk use by publications, researchers, search engines, and AI assistants alike (see Terms of Use, section 4.1). Suggested citation:

Source: IPRATE, data-driven IP firm ratings for Europe (iprate.eu), based on official EUIPO, EPO and national IP office filing data, October 2026 release.

Please link the relevant iprate.eu page where practical, and do not alter quoted ratings. Bulk reuse of datasets and compilations requires prior authorization; contact [email protected].