News

A firm can be respected, commercially successful and among the largest filers in its market without holding a Top Rated rating in every IPRATE category. There is no contradiction. IPRATE measures performance in official filing records under a published methodology. Reputation and filing volume alone do not determine the result.

Volume matters, but it is only one part of the assessment. Outcomes, consistency, applicant diversity and work for domestic applicants also matter. A firm with a large portfolio may lead on volume while other practices perform more strongly on the other measures. For European patents, for example, relative speed to grant and how long granted patents remain in force provide information that a filing count cannot.

Client mix also matters. Bulk Chinese applications routed through European filing platforms can produce very large volumes. If volume were the deciding criterion, these operations could dominate European ratings. Processing large numbers of applications does not, by itself, establish the breadth of a practice or its contribution to the domestic market. Our methodology deliberately looks beyond that headline number.

The comparison must also be the right one. IPRATE distinguishes countries, practice areas, national and European filing routes, and time periods. The emerging view covers the last five years; the long-term view examines the record from May 2004. A practice can be Top Rated in its recent activity and hold a different rating over the longer period. A strong trademark rating does not automatically determine its patent rating, and a rating in one country does not determine another.

Professional recognition and practitioners' knowledge of their markets are valuable. They can help us identify factual errors and understand a firm's history. They do not substitute for the published rating criteria. We apply the same methodology across countries and do not adjust it to produce an expected result for a familiar name.

If the underlying records are wrong, we correct them and recalculate. But a surprising result is not, on its own, evidence of an error. Top Rated must follow from the evidence under the methodology. It cannot be awarded because a firm is prominent, well connected or a major filer. Commercial visibility and card placement remain separate from ratings.

This release covers 32 European countries: 24,520 ranked firm profiles (-638 vs previous release) and 11,150 ranked attorney profiles (+4 vs previous release), computed from 21,262,773 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 32 European countries: 25,158 ranked firm profiles (+122 vs previous release) and 11,146 ranked attorney profiles (+100 vs previous release), computed from 21,248,458 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 32 European countries: 25,036 ranked firm profiles (+1,194 vs previous release) and 11,046 ranked attorney profiles (+26 vs previous release), computed from 21,204,300 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 23,842 ranked firm profiles (+624 vs previous release) and 11,020 ranked attorney profiles (+654 vs previous release), computed from 18,892,458 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 23,218 ranked firm profiles (-1,350 vs previous release) and 10,366 ranked attorney profiles (-1,786 vs previous release), computed from 18,870,564 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 24,568 ranked firm profiles and 12,152 ranked attorney profiles (+7 vs previous release), computed from 18,867,157 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 24,568 ranked firm profiles (-3,651 vs previous release) and 12,145 ranked attorney profiles (+81 vs previous release), computed from 18,867,157 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 28,219 ranked firm profiles (+293 vs previous release) and 12,064 ranked attorney profiles (+66 vs previous release), computed from 18,617,957 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

This release covers 31 European countries: 27,926 ranked firm profiles and 11,998 ranked attorney profiles, computed from 18,465,526 official filing records at EUIPO, EPO and national IP offices. Ratings are recomputed in full with every release and are never sold or sponsored.

At first glance, the EUIPO's updated guidance on the responsible use of generative AI seems like a welcome signal for AI governance. Transparency, provenance metadata, data classification and human oversight are foundational principles. They are also cited by almost everyone who wants to appear in control of technology that is moving faster than legal rules. Yet that is precisely the problem.

In trademark examination, AI is more than a productivity tool. It can influence how conflicts are identified, how similarity is framed, how evidence is summarised, and how risk is communicated to applicants. Even when AI does not decide, it can still shape the decision environment. A weak signal, badly presented, can become a strong assumption in the mind of an examiner, lawyer or founder. A human reviewer who is rushed, undertrained or over-reliant on machine output may simply become the final rubber stamp for AI. Human oversight is not a magic shield.

The emphasis on provenance metadata raises other hard questions. What exactly will be recorded? The source documents? The model version? The prompts? The retrieval logic? The confidence thresholds? The human edits? Provenance should not be a vague label; it should be a meaningful audit trail. Users need to know what was generated, what was retrieved, what was inferred, and what was legally verified.

This is especially important in legal and intellectual property workflows, where faster decisions are only useful if they are reliable, explainable and predictable. AI systems should expose uncertainty, preserve source links, separate prediction from legal conclusion, and make it easy for users to challenge the output. Data quality is not a technical detail. It is the foundation of trust.

That is also the standard IPRATE is built around. IPRATE ratings are data-based and rely on deterministic criteria rather than subjective assessments or unsupported inferences. The goal is not to replace expert judgment, but to provide structured, repeatable signals that can support better decision-making.

The EUIPO guidance is a step forward. But the real test is whether AI automation in trademark practice will be balanced with accuracy, accountability, reliability and repeatability.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has published the 2026 Patent Filing Guidelines, which entered into force on 1 April. These rules bring together guidance that was previously spread across different parts of the European patent system. The EPO is trying to make its procedures clearer and more consistent for applicants who file and manage patent applications in Europe. Entrepreneurs, researchers and businesses dealing with innovation should understand that the Guidelines shape what patents actually protect in Europe and which innovations qualify for patent protection.

One practically important change is that European patent applications can now be filed in DOCX format. DOCX files are easier to edit than PDFs for non-technical users. This may make it easier for inventors and rightsholders (especially startups and small and medium-sized enterprises) to file patent applications themselves without involving professional patent firms. It may also lower barriers to entry for new patent firms, which no longer need sophisticated electronic filing systems. For established players, however, it may increase complexity, as changes will need to be integrated into existing electronic filing systems.

Due to the complexity of international patenting, anyone thinking about filing for patent protection with the EPO is strongly advised to consult a qualified patent professional.