JUVE Patent UK rankings
Carpmaels & Ransford is recommended in five categories

Carpmaels & Ransford has been recommended for expertise in Pharma and biotechnology, Medical technology, Chemistry, Digital communication and computer technology and Electronics in the inaugural Juve Patent UK rankings. We have also been awarded three stars in the Litigation Patent Solicitors category.

Partners Hugh Goodfellow, Cameron Marshall, Edward Oates, Harvey Adams, Gary Small, David Wilson and Ian Kirby have all been recognised as leading individuals in their fields.

This is the first time that JUVE Patent has published rankings for UK patent firms. The rankings are based on extensive research and interviews with in-house counsel, law firms, patent attorney firms and barrister sets.

JUVE comments:

“Carpmaels has for years been one of the best-known patent attorney firms with one of the highest filing track records in the UK. Even across Europe, Carpmaels is on a par with the German market leaders such as Hoffmann Eitle and Vossius & Partner, especially when it comes to patents in pharma and life sciences. Some of the firm’s patent attorneys such as Cameron Marshall and Hugh Goodfellow have an outstanding reputation in these fields. This also goes for their work in disputes regarding life sciences patents, including before the EPO Boards of Appeal. “One of the absolute top firms in Europe for pharma patents,” says one competitor. Another praised how “the firm’s advice is very creative, sometimes pushing back the borders of what is possible”. Carpmaels’ strength in the prosecution of pharma patents means the patent litigation practice is also increasingly respected for pharma litigation. This is partly thanks to work for originator drug manufacturers such as Fibrogen, Celgene and Novartis. The team of lawyers around Ian Kirby benefits from the good ties to US companies and coordinates major Europewide disputes over traditional drugs and innovative biologics. The firm has advised originator drug manufacturers even more intensively on defending their key patents from attacks from competitors in UK revocation cases.”