Medical Device Patents: Fewer Partners on the Move, Down 29.6%

Medical device patent attorney hiring has split by level. Sartori & Partners data show 38 lateral partner moves in mechanical and medical device patent work in the 12 months to September 2026, against 54 in the 12 months before: partner hiring fell 29.6%. Over the same windows, hiring at every level went from 99 to 91 moves, so the all-level count held flat (-8.1%). The parent practice moved the other way at partner level: intellectual property partner hiring held flat (+8.0%), and partner hiring across the whole market rose 8.4%. A firm looking for a device patent partner this year is fishing in a smaller pool than the practice figures suggest.

The yearly partner counts show where the drop sits. Partner moves in the speciality reached 53 in 2024, then 48 in 2025, and stood at 36 by the end of October 2026, with two months still to count. Partner hiring fell 29.6% between the two 12-month windows, a gap of 16 partner moves.

Below partner level the count did not shrink. Moves by counsel and associates numbered 45 in the earlier window and 53 in the later one. That is why total hiring held flat (-8.1%) while the partner count dropped. In intellectual property as a whole, partner moves went from 326 to 352, so practice partner hiring held flat (+8.0%). The device patent bench is moving against its own practice.

For a hiring partner, the consequence is timing. Fewer device patent partners changed firms last year, so each one who does move draws more interest, and a search that would have produced a short list in 2024 may now produce a shorter one.

Even after the drop, this is a senior market. Partners were 42.6% of mechanical and medical device patent moves over the latest 12 months, against 34.4% in intellectual property and 27.7% across all practices. Over three years the gap holds: partners made 47.6% of the speciality's moves, against 33.5% in the practice and 26.9% in the market.

The speciality is a small part of its practice. Device patent moves recorded under intellectual property were 9.0% of that practice's moves in the latest 12 months. A step to a higher title is also less common here: 10.6% of the speciality's moves came with a step to a higher title, against 12.6% in intellectual property. Device patent lawyers tend to move at the level they already hold, so a firm that wants a partner usually hires someone who is one already.

Among moves to firms whose size we know, firms of 400-999 lawyers took 38.3% of mechanical and medical device patent hires in the latest 12 months. Across the market that class took 23.4%, and in intellectual property 24.2%. Firms of 1,000+ lawyers took 33.0%, well below their 53.6% of the market. Firms of 150-399 lawyers took 24.5%, against 13.3% market-wide.

This changes who a firm competes with for a candidate. In most practices the largest firms set the pace; in device patent work the mid-size class does. A firm of that size bidding for a device patent partner is up against its direct peers, and a larger firm should expect to meet them on the same short list.

In the Sartori & Partners lateral database, Washington, DC took 12.2% of mechanical and medical device patent moves over three years, against 9.4% in intellectual property. New York followed at 11.8%, close to its 13.9% practice share. Chicago, at 9.8%, and Atlanta, at 6.8%, both sit well above their practice shares of 5.6% and 2.3%.

Washington, DC sits next to the federal patent office and the agencies that regulate devices, which gives the city a deep bench of patent practitioners. Chicago and Atlanta matter more for this speciality than for the practice at large. A firm with an office in either city has a local pool that a firm searching only the coasts will miss.

Over three years, 131 firms hired at least one mechanical and medical device patent lawyer, and the ten most active took 19.2% of individual hires. Greenberg Traurig ranks first, in the 6-10 band of hires, followed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in the same band. No single firm dominates: the first four hirers share that band, and ranks five to ten sit in the 3-5 band.

A spread this wide means a candidate can usually choose between several credible offers. A firm that wants to win one should move quickly once a conversation starts and be clear about the platform it offers the partner's existing practice.

First, budget more time. With partner moves at 38 in the latest settled year, against 54 the year before, a device patent partner search can be expected to take longer than an intellectual property search in general, where partner hiring held flat (+8.0%).

Second, look past the coasts. Over three years Chicago and Atlanta drew 9.8% and 6.8% of the speciality's moves, more than their weight in the practice. Third, expect firms of 400-999 lawyers on the other side of every offer: they took 38.3% of hires.

Fourth, weigh growing your own. Sartori & Partners data record 29 partner promotions in the speciality in the 12 months to May 2026, with a median of 10.0 years from first year of practice to partner. Where the lateral pool is thin, a senior associate or counsel already on the bench may be the faster route to a partner.