Patent Litigation Moves in Teams: 2026 Lateral Hiring Data

Patent litigation lateral moves follow a pattern the rest of the market does not: the lawyers tend to arrive together. Sartori & Partners data show that 9.3% of the 301 patent litigation moves in the 12 months to October 2026 were part of a team joining the same firm in the same quarter. Across all practices the figure was 1.5%. For a firm planning to build or rebuild a patent bench, that changes the unit of recruitment from the individual partner to the group that works around them.

The gap is not simply a feature of the wider practice. Intellectual property as a whole recorded 5.1% team moves, and trade secrets, the closest sibling specialty, recorded 6.4%. Patent litigation sits above both, at 1.8 times the rate of its own practice.

The reason is the shape of the work. A patent case runs for years through claim construction, expert discovery, trial and appeal, and it is staffed by a stable group of partners, counsel and technically trained associates who know the patents and the products at issue. When the partner who runs the matter changes firms, the people who carry the file have every reason to follow. A firm that hires the partner alone can find itself holding a case it cannot staff.

The practical consequence for a hiring firm is that a patent litigation search should be scoped as a group search from the first conversation: who comes with the partner, at which levels, and which conflicts the whole group brings with it.

Title step-ups are the second unusual feature. In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, 9.0% of patent litigation moves came with a higher title at the new firm, against 12.9% across the market and 12.6% in intellectual property. That leaves the practice 3.9 points under the market rate. Trade secrets lawyers stepped up more often, at 11.2%, and the three-year rate for patent litigation itself was 11.6%.

Part of the explanation is the level mix. Partners made up 42.9% of patent litigation moves, 15.2 points above the market's 27.7%. A partner cannot gain a title by moving, so a partner-heavy flow pulls the step-up rate down. The rest fits the team pattern: lawyers who move as a group usually keep their place in it, and the associate who was a senior associate at the old firm is a senior associate at the new one.

For a hiring firm, this means a patent litigation hire is rarely won with a title. The offer has to compete on platform, conflicts, rates and the economics of the whole group, because candidates expect to arrive at the level they left.

The geography is narrower than the market's. Washington, DC took 17.9% of patent litigation moves, an index of 319 against the market's share, and San Francisco took 12.0%, an index of 373. Dallas, at an index of 351, is the third city where the practice runs well above its market weight. New York took 15.3%, close to its place in the market as a whole (index 104).

Patent litigators also stay put more than other lawyers: 15.4% changed city with their move, against 20.5% market-wide. The patent office, the busiest patent courts and the technology companies that generate disputes sit in a few regions, and the lawyers stay close to them. Washington, DC was also the largest city of origin, the starting point for 14.0% of moves.

A firm without a patent office in one of these three cities is recruiting against the current. A firm with one should expect to recruit locally, from competitors in the same city, rather than relocate a team.

Patent litigation hiring is more concentrated than the market's. The ten most active hirers accounted for 26.0% of patent litigation moves, against 12.9% for the market's ten most active firms and 15.2% in intellectual property. In all, 120 firms hired a patent litigator in the 12 months. Winston Taylor ranked first, in the 11-20 band of hires.

One caveat weighs more here than in most practices. Firm ranks count individual lateral hires; lawyers who arrived as one team in the same quarter sit in the totals but not in a firm's rank. With 9.3% of patent litigation moves made in teams, the list above understates the firms that built their benches by bringing in whole groups.

For a firm planning a patent hire, the realistic competition for any given team is a small set of repeat buyers. Knowing which of them already has a gap at the same level is often the difference between a team that signs and one that takes a counteroffer.

Volume tells a quieter story than the market's. Patent litigation hiring held flat (-1.9%), with 308 moves in the 12 months to September 2026 against 314 a year earlier. Market-wide hiring rose 9.0% over the same windows. Partner hiring in the practice held flat (-12.0%), on 125 partner moves against 142.

Sartori & Partners figures for intellectual property as a whole show hiring that held flat (+7.2%), so the steadiness is shared across the practice rather than specific to patent work. Demand has not gone away: on the data date, law-firm career pages listed 360 open patent litigation roles.

A steady count inside a rising market means patent litigators do not get easier to find when lateral hiring picks up elsewhere. The number of candidates who move in a year is close to constant, and a meaningful part of it moves in groups that are committed before a search reaches them.

Plan for the group. With 9.3% of moves made in teams, map the counsel and associates who work on each target partner's matters before the first approach, and budget for them. Run conflicts on the whole group early: a team's matters arrive together, and a conflict on one case can stop the move.

Lead with the platform, not the title. Only 9.0% of patent litigators stepped up a title in their move, so the pitch is trial capacity, technical depth among associates, rates the matters can bear and a clean conflict position.

Recruit where the bench is. Washington, DC, San Francisco and Dallas carry indexes of 319, 373 and 351, and only 15.4% of patent litigators changed city. A firm building in another city should budget more time, or open where the lawyers already work.

Expect the pool to stay the size it is. With hiring that held flat (-1.9%) and the busiest buyers taking 26.0% of moves, a firm that waits for a better year is waiting for a market that has not appeared in this practice.