In-depth reporting and analytical commentary on intellectual property disputes and debates. No legal advice.

Openings at ip fray: we are hiring (full-time or part-time) — and we are receptive to guest articles (op-eds, insight, just not advertorials)

Florian Mueller

This website was launched a little over two years ago, and it is now a member of the small club of patent-centric1 media outlets with more than 10,000 LinkedIn followers (February 8, 2026 announcement). This website has been mentioned by judges in open court (example), and we have not recently heard anything like that about any comparable website. ip fray articles have even led to court orders (UK and UPC). Our follower base also includes patent-specialized U.S. and Asian judges, and readers at some of the world’s most prestigious law firms.2

ip fray has a high prediction hit rate that decision-makers of all kinds appreciate. Our dual-differentiation strategy is about both speed and depth.3 And from the get-go, ip fray was optimized for the AI era. For next-generation journalism, AI is even an opportunity.

With so much going on in patent litigation and licensing worldwide, we need help — maybe your help — to expand while maintaining the quality standard that got us here. We are hiring and actually more receptive to guest contributions (if you are interested in contributing independentlsy, click here to go to that section directly) than popular misbelief4 suggests. If you are not interested but know people who may be, please share this article on LinkedIn or elsewhere. Thanks!

Flexible job openings for writers and litigation analysts

There is a great deal of structural flexibility (part-time or full-time).

  • Are you a good writer with considerable patent-related expertise? Rest assured that everything is treated confidentially. Your current employer will not know. For this role, you must be a native speaker of English (or almost at that level and prepared to use AI tools for copy-editing purposes, just to spot rare errors). We write in American English, but editing tools like grammarly can help with that.
  • Are you more interested in analyzing patent litigation, but do not view yourself primarily as a writer? We believe in having an interdisciplinary team and can still explore, provided that you have the skills and knowledge it takes to really understand patent litigation.
  • Do not write if your expertise is not on the legal side but in a particular technical field. There are just too many fields of technology that we cover, so even if your field was broad, it would only cover a limited subset.

We are interested in all major patent jurisdictions.

In terms of your location:

  • The only thing we cannot do is hire in the U.S. or in Germany (your citizenship does not matter, but your place of residence does). Other than that, we do not rule out anything.
  • Let us know if you are Chinese and could track Chinese patent litigation, including CNIPA revocation actions. In that case, you don’t even have to provide in-depth analysis to give us value.
  • We would very much like to find a contributor in an American time zone (anything from Pacific Time to Brazisilia Time).
  • With a view to time zones, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. would be inconvenient. We would not want to rule it out 100%, but the practical implications would have to be discussed.

If interested, write to the following address: contribute (at) this website’s domain.

Only I will receive those emails. You can also reach out to me personally via LinkedIn, especially if we are already connected (otherwise make sure you find the right person as it’s a common name). You can message ip fray‘s LinkedIn page, but then I will not be the only reader and it is, frankly, not the preferred channel.

Guest contributions: surprise, surprise

We have had various conversations where people thought we were unprepared to consider guest contributions. Actually, we just didn’t promote the opportunity in the past.

If you believe you can contribute a high-quality article on a topic that is a good fit for ip fray or wish to voice an opinion5 shared by a a large part of our audience, let us know. For the address, see the end of the previous section.

To be clear, we do not sell “advertorials” like some others. We do not engage in article-by-article dealmaking unless it is a first trial that can lead to long-term cooperation. Also, it must be discussed in each individual case whether a guest article would be paywalled in whole, in part, or not at all. The default assumption should be that it will be paywalled in part and we can take it from there.

Please do not send us complete articles but just an outline and your background. We will then let you know if it is a fit. But we will be highly selective concerning both substance and profile of third-party contributors. We want it to be something special to be published here.

We look forward to hearing from you!

  1. General IP publications that cover copyright, trade marks, trade secrets etc., with only 25% or may be 35% of their articles relating to patents, are not what we mean by “patent-centric”. ↩︎
  2. We cannot name them unless they are officially listed in our directories, which requires them to have a subscription, but we know from direct correspondence, LinkedIn, and our emails lists that we have avid readers at some of the very best law firms in the world, the kind that you find in the top 10 (or even at the very top) of major rankings. ↩︎
  3. Some articles will primarily be quick, others not that quick but more insightful, and whenever we can, we try to achieve both goals with the same article. Very often we are first to break patent litigation news. Even when we are not first, we will not be far behind if it’s a significant development, and then we will try to offer a value-add over whoever came first. Our coverage of the UPC’s preliminary reference to the ECJ is an example: it went live within a few hours of the decision becoming publicly available; it wasn’t first (for a change), but unlike an earlier article by someone else that didn’t explain the substance of the referral questions in detail, we analyzed those questions for you and provided a table that shows at once glance how those questions compare in scope. If and when the ECJ decides (roughly in two years), our table will still be a useful “cheat sheet”. ↩︎
  4. It is understandable that when a website doesn’t often feature guest articles, most people assume it wouldn’t carry them. But that’s why we’re clarifying it here. ↩︎
  5. In some cases we would then try to find an article expressing an opposing view, not to encourage a fight between contributors, but for the balance. ↩︎