Consumer Brands' IP Counsel in 2026: Disputes Are 95.3% of IP Deals

A general counsel at a consumer brand who is shortlisting IP law firms for consumer brands is buying, above all, a bench that spends its year on contested matters. Sartori & Partners data show that consumer goods and retail was the client sector on 8.8% of the intellectual property practice's 5,352 deals in the 12 months to October 2026, 469 deals in all, the first of the twelve sectors listed. Seen from the sector's side, IP lawyers worked on 31.9% of consumer goods and retail deals. And the work is a fight more often than a transaction: disputes and investigations were the type on 95.3% of IP deals and on 42.4% of the sector's. One caution frames every figure below. The IP practice's deal counts include disputes taken from public court and trademark-office records, so they count matters on record, not fees, and they do not rank IP against other practices.

The intellectual property practice serves many client sectors, and consumer goods and retail heads its list. Technology and software follows at 7.0%, food, beverage and agriculture at 6.5% and pharma and biotech at 6.3%. The weight is out of line with the sector's place in the deal record as a whole: consumer goods and retail was the client sector on 3.1% of all dated deals, so its share of IP work is 2.8 times its share of everything. Many IP deals carry no sector label and some carry several, so the shares in the chart are never added and do not split the practice.

In the Sartori & Partners deal record, 469 IP deals had a consumer goods or retail client over 12 months. For a brand owner, the reading is practical: IP lawyers meet consumer goods matters more often than those of any other listed client sector, so a firm that pitches its IP bench should show the consumer goods and retail matters its partners handled in the past 12 months, not a general IP record built on work for technology or drug companies.

The gap between the sector and the whole deal record is 20.8 points. The other large practices do not show it. Corporate and M&A lawyers worked on 23.4% of the sector's deals, level with their 23.3% across all deals, and capital markets lawyers on 20.9%, below their 26.4% across all deals. Food, beverage and agriculture, the sector nearest to consumer brands, shows the same tilt: IP lawyers worked on 29.5% of its deals. One deal can carry lawyers from several practices, so these shares overlap and are never summed.

For a general counsel, that makes IP a standing line of outside work in this sector rather than an occasional add-on. Plan for it as a recurring mandate, and prefer a firm whose IP partners already work alongside the corporate team on the same client: the sector's corporate share sits at the market's level, while its IP share sits far above it.

What the work is matters more than how much of it there is. Of the intellectual property practice's deals, 95.3% were disputes and investigations, 5,103 matters, while M&A was the type on 0.6% and venture and growth on 0.7%. The consumer goods and retail sector is far less one-sided, yet disputes still head it: disputes and investigations were the type on 42.4% of its deals, against 25.0% across all dated deals and 38.7% in food, beverage and agriculture. Capital markets at 20.4% and M&A at 19.9% follow in the sector.

Deal values say little here. A value was disclosed on 2.0% of IP deals, against 10.7% of consumer goods and retail deals, so no reliable ticket size exists for IP work and none is quoted. Judge IP counsel as disputes counsel instead: which partners have taken contested matters to a decision, how many are live on their desks now, and who in the team appears before the court or the trademark office on your behalf.

The two trends point in different directions. Consumer goods and retail deals held flat (-2.1%), from 1,505 in the 12 months to September 2025 to 1,474 in the 12 months to September 2026. Intellectual property deals across all sectors rose 20.9%, from 4,399 to 5,319, and the whole deal record rose 10.6%, from 43,590 to 48,216. No trend is published for IP work in consumer goods alone, so the two readings stand side by side rather than as one figure. Because the IP count includes court and trademark-office records, its rise is one of matters on record, not of fees.

The partner bench has not moved with the caseload. IP lateral partner hiring held flat (+8.0%): 326 IP partners changed firms in the 12 months to September 2025 and 352 in the 12 months to September 2026. All IP lateral moves, at every level, held flat (+7.2%), from 987 to 1,058. Matters on record grew; the number of IP partners changing firms did not. For a brand owner, partner time is the scarce input: confirm who will run your matter and what else that partner is carrying before you sign the engagement.

No firm list exists for IP work in consumer goods alone. Two lists come close, and each covers more than the pair: the first ranks advisers on IP deals across all sectors, the second ranks advisers on all consumer goods and retail deals, capital markets and M&A included. On the IP list, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton and Greenberg Traurig share the top band, 151-250 deals each over 12 months, followed by Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner in the 101-150 band.

The sector list is headed by Latham & Watkins in the 61-100 band and Harter Secrest & Emery in the 41-60 band. Checked name by name, three firms sit on both lists: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton (1st on IP, 4th in the sector), Greenberg Traurig (2nd and 6th) and ArentFox Schiff (5th and 8th).

These three combine IP deal volume across sectors with a deep consumer goods client record, and a shortlist can start with them. Add one name from the rest of the IP list and test it on the consumer goods and retail matters its partners handled in the past 12 months, since its rank rests on IP work for every sector.

29.9% of consumer goods and retail deals were handled with lawyers in New York, against 30.5% of food, beverage and agriculture deals. Washington, DC follows at 11.7% against 15.1%, London at 11.4% against 10.3%, and Chicago at 11.1% against 8.7%. These shares cover all the sector's deals, not only its IP work, and one deal counts in every city whose lawyers worked on it, so they are never added.

For a consumer brand, a team split between New York and Washington is the sector's ordinary staffing, with Chicago and London close behind. Ask where the IP partner on your matter sits, and whether the court and trademark work runs from the same office as the corporate relationship or is passed to another one.

Buy a disputes bench. Disputes and investigations were the type on 95.3% of IP deals and on 42.4% of the sector's deals, so the IP counsel you hire will spend its time on contested matters, and its trial and trademark-office record is the one to examine. Treat IP as a standing mandate: IP lawyers sit on 31.9% of consumer goods and retail deals, against 11.1% across the record. Ask for sector proof, since consumer goods was the client sector on 8.8% of IP deals and a firm with real depth will show those matters. Expect partner time to be the constraint: IP deals rose 20.9% while IP partner hiring held flat. Start the shortlist with the three firms on both lists, and set aside price comparisons built on deal size, because a value was disclosed on only 2.0% of IP deals.