Patent Attorney and Founder
I’ve noticed a common trend among big companies. They tend to file most of their intellectual property through a major law firm or two, but a smaller chunk of their patents might be handled by a few boutique firms. It’s an interesting strategy, right? And honestly, it took me a minute to really understand why that is. But now, after thinking about it, I get it. There are reasons behind this choice, and it can often be a good move for them.
Big law firms are often tied up with large, high-profile clients, like Facebook or Amazon. These huge corporations don’t want to take any risks, so they set strict rules. If you’re working with one of these big clients, you may be banned from representing anyone else that could be seen as a competitor. This can create conflicts, even when they’re not obvious right away. It’s kind of like a game of musical chairs: once you sit with a giant, you can’t always move around freely.
That’s where smaller firms come in. They can help avoid these conflicts. Plus, they offer a fresh perspective and may even provide better service in some cases. It’s like when you’re working with one employee, and you’re not sure how well they’re doing because there’s no one else to compare them to. Sometimes, having a second option can keep everyone on their toes.
Also, there’s a bit of loyalty involved. I know a few clients who started small and eventually grew into big players. Even as they switched to bigger firms for some things, they stuck with the smaller ones for certain services because they had built trust over the years. It’s not uncommon for smaller firms to keep that ongoing relationship, even as the company grows.
On the other hand, large law firms often try to convince clients to bring all their business under one roof. It simplifies billing, and it’s easier for them to coordinate. But that’s not always the best option. Sure, it cuts down on admin, but does it always mean better service? For me, I’ve worked with big firms plenty of times. They know their stuff and do excellent work. They’ve got the resources to handle complicated cases and can put in the time because they bill by the hour. But the downside is that smaller companies may not always get the attention they deserve.
That brings us to conflicts. In the legal world, conflicts are a big deal. Sometimes, you have procedural conflicts, where you know the people involved and can’t remain impartial. Other times, there are substantive conflicts, which are trickier. For instance, if you’re working on two patents that are incredibly similar, you have to be extra careful. You can’t let either client know about the other, even if it’s tempting to drop hints. In these cases, you have to walk a fine line.
For smaller inventors, though, it’s usually a lot easier. Take athletic shoes, for example. One patent could focus on the air chamber in the shoe, and another could be about the way the laces are threaded. These are very different things, so it’s rare to have a conflict.
And when it comes to trademarks, it’s mostly about recognition. If you’re filing for a new trademark and realize it’s too similar to one you’ve already filed for a client, it’s an obvious conflict. But honestly, in all the trademarks I’ve worked on—over 1,500—I’ve only run into a couple of real conflicts. It just doesn’t happen that often.
In the end, whether a company works with big firms, small firms, or a mix of both, it comes down to finding the best fit. Sometimes that means avoiding conflicts, sometimes it’s about loyalty, and sometimes it’s just about getting the best service. It’s not a one-size-fits-all answer.