Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner: The Phoenix Office Where the Firm’s Global IP Practice Leader Sits

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s Phoenix office, established in 1987, is home base for the firm’s Global Practice Group Leader for Intellectual Property and Technology — and has represented golf-equipment maker PING in patent litigation in Arizona federal court.

A NOTE TO READERS. This profile was researched and written independently by Awesome Attorneys’ editorial team. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP did not pay for, request, or review this article prior to publication, and placement on Awesome Attorneys’ editorial pages cannot be purchased. Nothing in this article is legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict the outcome of any future case.

At a Glance

Sources: bclplaw.com, Chambers USA. Compiled August 2026.

Origin

BCLP Phoenix: Nearly Four Decades, With the Firm’s Global IP Leader Based Locally

BCLP’s Phoenix office was established in 1987 and today serves clients across the Southwestern United States on matters ranging from local to global in scope. Notably, George C. Chen, the firm’s Global Practice Group Leader for Intellectual Property and Technology — meaning he leads BCLP’s entire firmwide IP practice, not just a regional group — is based in the Phoenix office, giving the city an outsized role in the firm’s international IP strategy.

Practice

Patent Litigation With Real, Documented Arizona Cases

BCLP’s IP practice spans patent litigation and prosecution, trademark and copyright work, and trade secrets, drawing on attorneys with backgrounds as inventors, scientists, and engineers alongside their legal training. Chambers USA specifically cites the firm’s representation of Karsten Manufacturing Corporation — the parent company of golf equipment maker PING — in patent infringement cases and counterclaims before the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, a genuine, named, locally litigated matter rather than a generic capability claim. The firm fields more than 30 patent litigators firmwide who have tried utility and design patent cases in major federal patent venues nationally. The Phoenix office’s broader practice also spans antitrust, class actions, business and commercial litigation, labor and employment, environmental, real estate, and bankruptcy and loan workout matters.

Track Record

The Karsten Manufacturing/PING patent litigation is the specific, named, independently documented matter Awesome Attorneys identified for the Phoenix office’s IP practice; beyond that, Awesome Attorneys did not identify a comprehensive, itemized case-results table for the practice.

Past-Results Disclaimer: Every case is different, and no past result guarantees a similar outcome in any future matter.

Client Voice

Chambers USA’s client-interview-based research quotes clients describing named BCLP IP attorneys directly: one client called litigator Daniel Crowe “an excellent lawyer” who “understands complex issues of IP litigation,” and another described Ben Clark as “a go-to attorney for patent litigation matters.” These are Chambers-sourced statements from the firm’s national IP practice, not independently verified by Awesome Attorneys against a specific Phoenix client matter.

Community

Awesome Attorneys did not identify Phoenix-office-specific community or pro bono initiatives distinct enough to summarize meaningfully in this profile; the firm’s materials reference broader firmwide civic engagement typical of a global firm.

Recognition

Chambers USA independently ranks BCLP’s intellectual property practice, describing the firm as “well-regarded” with a litigation practice that “garners respect” and is “equipped to resolve disputes without recourse to the courts.” The firm has also been recognized in U.S. News – Best Lawyers’ “Best Law Firms” rankings. Awesome Attorneys notes these are firmwide, not Phoenix-office-specific, recognitions, and discloses that distinction rather than implying local-office-specific rankings that were not identified.

The Arizona Legal Backdrop

What follows is general legal information, not legal advice.

Patents, federal trademarks, and copyrights are governed almost entirely by federal law rather than Arizona statute, filed with and enforced through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and federal courts — including, as in the Karsten Manufacturing matter, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Arizona separately protects trade secrets through the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act, A.R.S. § 44-401 et seq., a civil remedy independent of any federal patent or registration.

The Awesome Attorneys Assessment

BCLP Phoenix’s clearest differentiator is having the firm’s Global Practice Group Leader for Intellectual Property based locally, combined with a specific, named, Arizona-litigated patent case (Karsten Manufacturing/PING) rather than a generic capability claim — genuine local depth inside a global platform.

The honest trade-off: as a large global firm, BCLP is likely to carry fee structures and matter minimums suited to substantial, often multi-jurisdictional IP matters, and Awesome Attorneys did not identify a Phoenix-office-specific public client-review record.

Methodology & Sourcing

This profile was researched in August 2026 from bclplaw.com and Chambers USA’s published rankings and client-interview excerpts. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP did not commission, review, or pay for this profile.

Publisher Disclosure & Independence Notice

This profile is an independent editorial article published by Awesome Attorneys. Awesome Attorneys does not endorse, recommend, or warrant any lawyer or law firm profiled on this site, and inclusion in this series is not paid placement.

Related: more Arizona intellectual property attorney profiles · more attorney profiles serving Phoenix.