SHERMAN IP LLP

About SHERMAN IP LLP

Sherman IP LLP is a full-service intellectual property law firm based in Encino, California, with additional offices listed in Los Angeles and St. Petersburg, Florida. Its practice spans patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, controversies and litigation, transactions, social media and e-commerce matters, and outside general counsel services, along with a Control Legal offering named on the firm’s website. The firm describes itself as a top IP law firm over ten years running and frames its mission around adding exclusivity to creativity.

Positioning itself for clients from high tech to low tech, Sherman IP emphasizes technical depth: its attorneys hold advanced backgrounds in electrical engineering, computer science, and applied mathematics, credentials the firm links to sophisticated advice on complex technological and legal matters. The firm describes a team-based staffing model intended to eliminate cost redundancy and artificial law firm bureaucracy, with strategies tailored to each client’s needs. The audience reflected in visitor reviews is largely business owners, inventors, and companies holding or building trademark and patent portfolios, including some seeking ongoing IP counsel across multiple ventures.

Customer feedback is mixed and specific. The firm’s 3.70 rating across 20 reviews reflects genuine praise alongside pointed criticism. Positive reviewers repeatedly highlight the clarity of explanations about trademark and patent procedures, attorney responsiveness, and proactive help maintaining existing registrations. Several report successful outcomes, including issued patents and trademarks registered after earlier attempts through other providers failed. One reviewer credited the firm for declining a likely unsuccessful appeal and recommending a different route rather than collecting a fee, and another noted that managing multiple marks became easier with the firm’s oversight. Reviewers also mention a high volume of emails from the firm, with at least one saying the services were still worth the price.

Criticism clusters around two areas. The first is outreach style: multiple reviewers describe unsolicited or status-alert emails about their trademarks as alarming or scare tactics, with some reporting that unsubscribe attempts did not work. The second is communication and follow-through: a minority report long waits with little contact, additional payment requests before progress, and matters that slipped and required reapplication. These accounts sit alongside the positive reviews rather than replacing them, so prospective clients evaluating the firm should weigh both the strong procedural guidance described by satisfied clients and the responsiveness and solicitation concerns raised by others.