Pharma IP Counsel in 2026: One Firm on Both the Pharma and IP Lists

A general counsel in pharma or biotech who sets out to compare pharma IP law firms meets two rankings that barely touch. Sartori & Partners data show that the firms most active on the sector's 3,276 deals in the 12 months to October 2026 and the firms most active on the 5,352 intellectual property deals of the same months are almost entirely different names. Checked one by one, a single firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, sits on both top 10 lists. The reason lies in what each list counts. The sector list covers all pharma and biotech work, and capital markets lawyers sat on 53.1% of those deals; the IP list covers IP matters for clients in every sector, and IP lawyers sat on 10.3% of pharma deals. Neither list ranks IP work for drug and biotech companies, and no list for that pair is published.

The first list ranks firms by the pharma and biotech deals they advised over 12 months, whatever practice carried the deal. Cooley heads it in the 251-400 band, with Goodwin Procter in the same band, then Latham & Watkins in the 151-250 band; the tenth name sits in the 61-100 band.

The second list ranks firms by intellectual property deals for clients in every sector. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton and Greenberg Traurig share its top band, 151-250 deals each, and Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner follows in the 101-150 band. Set the two blocks against each other row by row and only Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati appears in both: 4th on the pharma list in the 151-250 band, 9th on the IP list in the 61-100 band. The other nine names on each list are not on the other.

Read the gap with care. A firm absent from the IP list may still carry a deep pharma IP bench, and a firm absent from the pharma list may still act for many drug companies on IP matters: each list ranks volume across a whole sector or a whole practice, never inside the pair. The consequence for a buyer is simple. A sector ranking will not shortlist IP counsel, and an IP ranking will not prove pharma experience, so build the list from both and ask every candidate for its pharma and biotech IP matters of the past 12 months.

The sector list follows the sector's work, and in pharma and biotech that work leans heavily toward capital markets. In the Sartori & Partners deal record, capital markets lawyers worked on 53.1% of pharma and biotech deals, against 26.4% of all dated deals, and corporate and M&A lawyers on 23.4%, against 23.3%. IP lawyers worked on 10.3% of the sector's deals, 339 in all, close to their 11.1% across all dated deals and to 11.3% in technology and software. One deal can carry lawyers from several practices, so these shares overlap and are never added.

With capital markets lawyers on 53.1% of the sector's deals, the pharma list weighs financing and transaction work heavily, because that is where the sector's volume sits. This is a reading of the sector's deal flow, not of the IP depth of any named firm. Use the sector list to judge advisers for an offering or an acquisition, then test IP counsel on a separate record.

Seen from the practice's side, the weight shifts. Pharma and biotech was the client sector on 6.3% of intellectual property deals over 12 months, 339 deals, against the sector's 6.8% of all dated deals. Consumer goods and retail stood at 8.8%, technology and software at 7.0%, food, beverage and agriculture at 6.5% and medical devices at 1.7%. Many IP deals carry no sector label and some carry several, so the shares in the chart do not split the practice and are not summed.

The kind of matter shapes the IP list. Disputes and investigations were the type on 95.3% of IP deals, since the count includes disputes taken from public court and trademark-office records; across pharma and biotech deals that type stood at 9.6%, and across all dated deals at 25.0%. The IP list therefore ranks firms by contested matters on record for consumer goods, technology, food and every other sector, not by fees and not by drug work alone. For a pharma general counsel, a firm's place on it shows how much contested IP work it carries overall; the life sciences part of that docket has to come from the firm, matter by matter.

Both readings point up, and they measure different things. Pharma and biotech deals rose 14.5%, from 2,880 in the 12 months to September 2025 to 3,298 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. Technology and software deals, by comparison, held flat (+4.6%), from 3,136 to 3,279. No trend is published for IP work in pharma alone, so the two figures sit side by side and are not merged into one.

The IP increase is an increase in matters on record, court and trademark-office records included, so it speaks to caseload rather than spending. Lateral partner moves in intellectual property held flat (+8.0%), with 326 IP partners changing firms in the 12 months to September 2025 and 352 in the 12 months to September 2026. For a company hiring counsel, the useful question follows from that pairing: who will lead your matter, and how many live matters does that partner already carry?

Pharma work has its own map. In Sartori & Partners figures, 25.5% of pharma and biotech deals were handled with lawyers in Boston, against 10.1% of technology and software deals. New York stood at 45.9% against 38.7%, and Washington, DC at 25.0% against 19.6%. San Diego also features on the sector's list: 13.5% of pharma and biotech deals were handled with lawyers in San Diego, just after San Francisco at 17.7%. These shares cover all the sector's deals, not only IP matters, and a deal counts in every city whose lawyers worked on it, so they are never added.

For a drug or biotech company, an adviser team in Boston or San Diego is the sector's ordinary staffing, not a regional extra. When a firm from the IP list pitches, ask where the partner on your matter sits and how often that office works next to the firm's pharma deal teams.

Keep the two rankings apart. The pharma list reflects a sector where capital markets lawyers sit on 53.1% of deals and IP lawyers on 10.3%, so it ranks financing and transaction volume. The IP list is no proof of drug work either: pharma and biotech was the client on 6.3% of IP deals, and disputes were 95.3% of the practice's matters. Start with the one firm on both lists, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, add candidates from each list, and test every one on the pharma IP matters it handled in the past 12 months. Plan staffing around Boston, New York and Washington, DC, and add San Diego, where 13.5% of the sector's deals were handled with lawyers. Finally, budget partner time with care: pharma deals rose 14.5% and IP deals rose 20.9%, while IP partner moves between firms held steady.