Food and Beverage IP Work in 2026: The Sector Held, IP Matters Rose

A general counsel at a food, beverage or agriculture company who retains food and beverage intellectual property lawyers is hiring into a practice that grew while the sector it serves stood still. Sartori & Partners data show that the sector's deal flow held flat (-1.5%) year on year, from 1,172 deals in the 12 months to September 2025 to 1,155 in the 12 months to September 2026. Over the same two windows, intellectual property matters on record rose 20.9%, from 4,399 to 5,319. The two readings meet on a large slice of the sector's work: IP lawyers sat on 29.5% of food, beverage and agriculture deals in the 12 months to October 2026, 348 deals in all. No trend is published for IP work in this sector alone, so the sector's line and the practice's line are two separate measures, read next to each other. IP counts also include disputes taken from public court and trademark-office records: they count matters on record, not fees, and they are no measure of market share.

Against the whole deal record, the food sector's reading stands apart. All dated deals rose 10.6% over the same windows, from 43,590 to 48,216, so food, beverage and agriculture stood still in a year when activity across sectors grew. Consumer goods and retail, the sector nearest to food in brands and shelf space, read the same way: its deals held flat (-2.1%), from 1,505 to 1,474. The IP practice moved away from both. Its rise of 20.9% counts matters across every client sector, so it does not show that food companies brought more IP work themselves; it shows that the practice they rely on carried more matters in the latest 12 months than in the previous 12 months.

For a buyer of legal work, the consequence is about capacity, not price. The sector's own volume gives no sign of a heavier year, yet the IP partners who take food matters share their calendars with a caseload that rose 20.9%. Ask at the pitch how many live matters the proposed partner carries, and write response times into the engagement letter instead of assuming the team has room.

In the Sartori & Partners deal record, the sector's practice mix leans toward IP. IP lawyers worked on 29.5% of food, beverage and agriculture deals, capital markets lawyers on 25.5% and corporate and M&A lawyers on 25.3%. Across all dated deals the IP figure is 11.1%, so the sector's IP share is 2.7 times the record-wide one. Consumer goods and retail tilts the same way, with IP lawyers on 31.9% of its deals. One deal can carry lawyers from several practices and many carry no practice label, so these shares overlap, are never added, and do not divide the sector's work between practices.

Seen from the practice, food, beverage and agriculture was the client sector on 6.5% of IP deals, 348 of the practice's 5,352 deals, third of the twelve sectors listed after consumer goods and retail at 8.8% and technology and software at 7.0%. The sector was the client on 2.4% of all dated deals, so its weight in IP work is 2.7 times its weight in the record overall.

The practical point for a food company: IP partners meet its kind of matter often, so sector experience is a fair demand, not a favor. Ask each firm for the food, beverage and agriculture matters its IP team handled over the past 12 months, with the forum for each, and discount a pitch that leans on IP work for other industries.

The kind of work fits the IP weight. Disputes and investigations were the type on 38.7% of food, beverage and agriculture deals, 456 deals, against 25.0% of all dated deals. Capital markets followed in the sector at 24.6% and M&A at 22.3%. Inside the IP practice the tilt is far stronger: disputes and investigations were the type on 95.3% of IP deals. Consumer goods and retail sits near food here too, with disputes on 42.4% of its deals. Some deals carry no type label, so the shares below do not add up to a whole.

Deal values give little help in budgeting this work. A value was disclosed on 2.0% of IP deals, against 14.4% of food, beverage and agriculture deals, and the sector's median disclosed value covers all its deals, capital markets and M&A included, not its IP matters. On this record the IP counsel on a food mandate is a disputes team. Test it on contested matters taken to a decision, and price it the way litigation is priced, by phase, rather than as a transaction fee.

Lateral hiring shows whether the people behind the matters are changing firms. Sartori & Partners data show that IP lateral partner moves held flat (+8.0%), from 326 in the 12 months to September 2025 to 352 in the 12 months to September 2026. IP lateral moves at every level held flat (+7.2%), from 987 to 1,058. Next to the practice's deal count, which rose 20.9%, the movement of IP partners between firms stayed level while the practice's matters on record climbed.

Lawyers whose own focus is food, beverage and agriculture moved more. The number of them who changed firms rose 43.2%, from 44 in the 12 months to September 2025 to 63 in the 12 months to September 2026. Partners made up 57.6% of these moves over the 12 months to October 2026, against 34.4% of all IP lateral moves. Firms with 400-999 lawyers took 44.6% of them and firms with 1,000+ lawyers 41.5%. These are individual lawyers changing firms, not a count of any firm's people.

For a company, the reading is a staffing risk rather than a shortage. With more food-focused lawyers changing firms than a year earlier, a relationship that rests on one partner can move with that partner. Ask that a second partner and a senior associate know each live matter, and keep the matter files where a move would not strand them.

No firm list exists for IP work in the food sector alone. Two lists stand near it, and each is wider than the pair: the IP list ranks advisers on intellectual property deals across every client sector, while the sector list ranks advisers on all food, beverage and agriculture deals, capital markets and M&A included. The IP list is headed by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton and Greenberg Traurig, both in the 151-250 band of deals over 12 months.

On the sector list, Davis Polk & Wardwell sits first in the 41-60 band, with the other nine firms in the 21-40 band. Checked name by name, two firms appear on both lists: Greenberg Traurig (2nd on the IP list, 2nd on the sector list) and Holland & Hart (7th and 4th).

A shortlist for food IP work can open with those two, since each pairs IP volume across sectors with a place among the sector's advisers. Any other name from the IP list should be tested on its food, beverage and agriculture matters, because its rank rests on IP work for all sectors. Any other name from the sector list should be tested on its IP matters, because its rank covers every type of deal in the sector.

30.5% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in New York, and 15.1% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers in Washington, DC. London followed at 10.3% and Chicago at 8.7%. Washington weighs more here than in consumer goods and retail, where 11.7% of deals were handled with lawyers in the city. The capital also draws IP lawyers who change firms: it was the destination of 10.5% of IP lateral moves, an index of 187 against the market's share. The sector shares cover all its deals, not only IP matters, and one deal counts in every city whose lawyers worked on it, so they are never added.

A food company buying IP counsel should expect a New York and Washington pairing to be normal staffing for its sector. When two offices share a file, agree in writing which partner owns the trademark and court docket, and which office bills the time.

Plan for IP as a standing line of outside spend. IP lawyers sat on 29.5% of the sector's deals, against 11.1% across the record, and Sartori & Partners counts show disputes on 38.7% of food deals, so hire IP counsel on its contested record. Watch partner time: the sector held flat at -1.5%, yet the IP practice it draws on carried matters that rose 20.9%, while IP partner moves between firms stayed level. Demand sector proof, since food was the client on 6.5% of IP deals and an experienced team can name its matters. Protect continuity, because moves by food-focused lawyers rose 43.2%. Open the shortlist with the two firms on both lists, and leave deal-size price comparisons aside: a value was disclosed on only 2.0% of IP deals.