Kenyon comes to end of road but IP boutique model not dead
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Kenyon comes to end of road but IP boutique model not dead

kenyon logo 165

The news of Kenyon & Kenyon’s closure came the same week that Managing IP published a look back at the IP boutiques set up in the 1960s, some of whom continue to thrive today

This week came the news that Houston-based Andrews Kurth will add the 55 remaining lawyers at Kenyon & Kenyon. 

kenyon logo

This in effect signals a sad end for a firm whose proud history stretches back to 1879. The shell of the company will be wound down.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in an interesting article following the announcement, Kenyon is the latest in a string of IP boutiques to close in recent years.

“In 2005, for instance, Ropes & Gray LLP acquired then-prominent intellectual-property firm Fish & Neave,” said the Journal. “By then, two other stalwarts in the field, New York’s Pennie & Edmonds and Los Angeles-based Lyon & Lyon LLP, had both gone bust, with lawyers decamping to other firms. Several smaller intellectual-property firms have been acquired or dissolved more recently, including Morgan & Finnegan LLP, whose lawyers joined Locke Lord LLP in 2009.”

With this latest deal, another storied firm is about to disappear – although the Kenyon name will live on through the new Andrews Kurth Kenyon name for the IP and technology practice – but this does not mean the end for the IP boutiques.

As the Wall Street Journal noted, some IP firms have managed to stay independent. This includes 370-lawyer Fish & Richardson, 350-lawyer Finnegan Henderson Farabow & Dunner, and 280-lawyer Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear.

Mad Men cover

The demise of Kenyon does suggest, however, that size is critical. Steven Nataupsky, managing partner at Knobbe, told the Journal: “I think those midsize (intellectual property) firms, if not balanced, have really struggled.”

The news came the same week that Managing IP published our latest cover story, on a number of boutique firms set up in the 1960s that would transform the market. Many of these still exist today, showing that the IP boutique model is still viable.

These firms include the firms now known as Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, Bereskin & Parr, Finnegan, Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt, and Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu.

The piece includes a look back at the circumstances that allowed these firms to crop up. They struggled at first, however, before reaching the critical mass that would allow them to survive. 




more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article