Lex Machina - Russ August & Kabat · PDF fileBased on the same data driving Lex Machina’s platform, this report exam - ines filing trends, case timing, motions, judges, top law firms,

Lex Machina Patent LitigationYear in Review 2016

by Brian C. Howard J.D./M.AAssociate General Counsel & Legal Data Scientist

and Jason Maples J.D./LL.M.Legal Data Expert

Published March 2017

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 i

Executive Summary

Lex Machina’s fourth annual Patent Litigation Year in Review examines the key trends in the legal landscape of 2016 and places them in the context of recent years, showcasing the value of Legal Analytics® in informing business and strategic decisions about litigation.

This report provides insight into the quantitative aspects of patent litigation. Practitioners can find data to give them an edge at all stages of a case: from top parties and firms for business development or outside counsel selection, to jurisdictional analysis, the timing of key case events, the likelihood of winning invalidity or infringement findings, all the way to data on damages. Regardless of which side of a complaint (or retainer agreement) one finds oneself, understanding the data behind the business of patent litigation has become indispensable to assessing strategic opportunities and risk, and to budgeting accordingly.

This report examines the key axes of legal data and their interactions, drawing upon Lex Machina’s platform that combines data from PACER, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book on Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), and more.

Key trends and highlights from 2016 include:

Filing Trends:

• In 2016, 4,537 patent cases were filed - a 22% decline from 2015.

• Cases were filed relatively evenly the last three quarters of 2016.

• The Eastern District of Texas continues to lead the nation by number of new cases filed in 2016 - 1,662 cases were filed there in 2016, representing a 34% decrease over the district’s 2015 total (2,541 cases).

• The Eastern District of Texas saw 36.7% of the cases filed in 2016, and that percentage increased each quarter.

• New case filings in the District of Delaware, historically the second top district, continued to decline further in 2016 by 16.5% over 2015 (itself a 42.4% decrease over 2014).

• High volume plaintiffs file the majority of cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Lex Machina’s 2016 Patent Litigation Year in Review surveys and summarizes the key trends that have emerged over the last year.

Based on the same data driving Lex Machina’s platform, this report exam-ines filing trends, case timing, motions, judges, top law firms, patent trends, parties, and damages to showcase the power of Legal Analytics .

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 63ii

The Eastern District of Texas

• While plaintifffs do not win on the merits disporportionately-often in the district, a low summary judgment grant rate, combined with local procedures that restricted parties from filing for summary judgment in the first instance, has produced an unusually high settlement rate.

Case Timing

• Central and Northern Districts of California saw faster median times to claim construction (about a year) than any of the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, or the national average (all a year and a half).

Motion Metrics

• Of motions to stay pending PTAB decided in 2015 and 2016, the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California had similar grant rates of 55-60%, while the Central District of California districts denied motions to stay pending PTAB at a higher rate.

Design Patent and ANDA Litigation

• Although comprising a smaller fraction of the litigated patents, design patent litigation is far more consistent than utility patent litigation.

• Design patent litigation remains highly concentrated in the Central District of California, and that district saw its total increase 4.8% over 2015.

• ANDA cases rose sharply in 2014 into 2015, but have declined in 2016 to a level more commensurate with 2010-2011.

• ANDA litigation is heavily concentrated in the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware, each of which has had significantly more cases filed than the all districts below the top ten.

Judges

• Judge Gilstrap of E.D.Tex. has an astounding 1,119 cases assigned to him in 2016 - the fourth year in a row that he has had the most patent cases of any judge in the country. Judge Gilstrap’s large caseload comes in part from him being assigned a large percentage of cases filed in the court’s Marshall Division.

• Judge Gilstrap’s large number of cases also put him at the top of the charts for most cases with findings and summary judgments.

• However, Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware is second both in most findings and most summary judgments.

Parties

• The top plaintiffs of 2016 include Shipping and Transit, Uniloc, and Sportbain Holdings.

• Shipping and Transit previously did business under the name ArrivalStar. This entity has featured as top plaintiff in previous years (as the top plaintiff of 2013 with 137 cases that year, and ranked the fourth in 2015 with 65 cases). In total, the two entities have brought over 500 patent lawsuits to date, but have not prevailed on the merits in any case so far.

• The top ten plaintiffs are all patent monetization entities (PMEs).

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 iii

• Samsung remains the top defendant with 37 patent cases filed against it in 2016. Samsung topped the chart last year in 2015 with 64 cases as well).

• Apple, the leading defendant in 2013 and 2014, defended fewer cases in 2016 (26 cases) than LG Electronics (28 cases).

• The majority of both plaintiffs and defendants have the Eastern District of Texas as their top court. The only other court that appears as the top court for the listed defendants is the District of Delaware.

Law Firms

• Ferraiuoli handled the most plaintiff-side cases in 2016 (206 cases), primarily in the Eastern District of Texas, but is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

• The top national firm of 2016 by plaintiff representation was Russ, August & Kabat with 110 cases (up from fourth in last year’s ranking), followed by McCarter English with 74 cases (last report’s top firm with 121 cases in 2015).

• The top national firm of 2016 by defendant representationis Fish & Richardson with 160 cases – more than double the next leading firm (Winston & Strawn, 61 cases). Also among the top firms are Perkins Coie (59 cases), and Alston & Bird (51 cases).

• Among Texas firms, Gilliam & Smith leads with 260 cases in 2016.

• Among Delaware firms, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell tops the list with 181 cases in 2016 (as it did last year with 251 cases in 2015).

Patents and Patent Findings

• Findings of infringement tend to come from either trial or from consent or default judgment, while findings of non-infringement or invalidity are more likely to have come from summary judgment.

• The median time for a preliminary injunction is 3.8 months, and for permanent injunction is 11.6 months.

Remedies and Case Resolutions

• The majority - 74.6% - of patent cases terminating between 2009 and 2016 settled. Of those that did not, the largest block (15.3% of terminated cases) reach a procedural outcome, such as transfer or consolidation. Wins by the claimant (6.1%) are more common than wins for the claim defendant (4.0%).

Damages

• Compensatory damages continue to be awarded in few cases, around 1.8 % of the terminated cases filed since the year 2000.

In sum, this report illustrates the impact that Legal Analytics can have on key aspects of the business and practice of patent law in generalized way. The full power of Legal Analytics is revealed, though, when users engage with the platform, tailoring their analysis to produce the tactical or strategic insights particular to their circumstance. When users have the ability to “twist the dials,” the results provide a competitive advantage in landing clients, winning cases, and closing deals by making data-driven decisions.

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 63iv

Table of Contents

Lex Machina’s Data, Methodology, and Terminology vii

Overview

Figure 1: New cases filed, 2007-2016, by year 1Figure 2: New cases filed, 2016, by month 1Figure 3: New cases filed, 2007-2016, by month 2Figure 4: New cases filed, 2016 vs recent years, by month, cumulative 2Figure 5: Defendant-case pairs, 2008-2016, by month 3

U.S. District Courts

Top Districts

Figure 6: New cases in 2016, by district 4Figure 7: New cases pie, 2016, by district 4Figure 8: Net increase (left) and decrease (right) in new cases filed in 2016 5Figure 9: New cases, 2007-2016, by year 5Figure 10: New cases in D. Del. and E.D.Tex., by year and plaintiff volume class, cases filed 2011-

2016 6Figure 11: Percentage change by quarter in cases filed in 2016 by top district 7

A Quantitative Look at the Eastern District of Texas

Figure 12: Case resolutions, E.D.Tex. vs other districts 8Figure 13: Summary judgment grant rate in cases filed 2013-2015 9Figure 14: Cases filed 2013-2015 9Figure 15: Cases filed 2013-2015 with a summary judgment motion filed 9Figure 16: Percentage of cases where a summary judgment motion is filed 9

Timing and Motions in Top Districts and Nationally

Figure 17: For top districts, cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2016 10

Figure 18: For top districts, timing by cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2016 11

Figure 19: For top districts, cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching trial in 2012-2016 12Figure 20: For top districts, timing by cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching trial in 2012-2016 12Figure 21: For top districts, timing and success of motions to stay pending PTAB decided 2015-

2016 13

Design Patent Litigation

Figure 22: Asserted patents, by design (orange) or utility (blue), by quarter, 2007-2016 14Figure 23: Top districts, by new cases including one or more design patents, 2007-2016 (and

showing percentage change from 2015)vv 14

ANDA Litgation

Figure 24: New ANDA cases, by year, 2007-2016 15

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 v

Figure 25: New ANDA cases, by month, 2013-2016 15Figure 26: Top districts, by new ANDA cases filed, 2009-2016 16Figure 27: Top districts, by new ANDA cases filed in 2016 (and percentage change from 2015) 16

Judges

Figure 28: Top Article III judges, by new cases filed in 2016 17Figure 29: Top magistrate judges, by new cases filed in 2016 17Figure 30: Top judges, by cases reaching decisions on patent infringement, validity, or enforce-

ability in 2016 18Figure 31: Top judges, by cases having summary judgment on patent infringement, validity, or

enforceability (showing judges having 3 or more) in 2016 18

Parties

Figure 32: Top plaintiffs, by new cases in 2016 19Figure 33: Top defendants, by new cases in 2016 20Figure 34: Top high volume plaintiffs by cases filed 2012-2016 (showing distribution of cases

by year, with higher concentrations shown in larger red and lower concentrations in thinner blue) 20

Party Profile: Shipping and Transit / Arrival Star

Law Firms

Figure 35: National law firms, by cases filed in 2016 representing plaintiffs 22Figure 36: National law firms, by cases filed in 2016 representing defendants 23Figure 37: Texas law firms, by cases filed in 2016 23Figure 38: Delaware law firms, by cases filed in 2016 23


Figure 39: Most frequently asserted patents in 2016 24Figure 40: Patent judgment types by finding, for findings in 2016 25Figure 41: Patent findings by judgment types, for findings in 2016 26Figure 42: Patents invalidated, 2013-2016, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patentable subject

matter, by quarter 27Figure 43: Patents invalidated, 2013-2016, by basis 27Figure 44: Top Districts by cases with patents invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of pat-

entable subject matter (cases filed 2012-2016 with invalidity finding in 2016) 28

Remedy Timing and Case Resolutions

Figure 45: Case reaching injunction, in cases terminating 2012-2016 29Figure 46: Case resolutions, in cases terminating 2009-2016 30Figure 47: Case resolutions, in cases terminating in 2016 30

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 63vi

Damages

Figure 48: Cases, 2000-2016, with damages 31Figure 49: Total damages awarded during 2016 in cases filed 2000-2016, by type 31Figure 50: Median damages, 2000-2016, by year and type 32Figure 51: Damages percentiles, 2000-2016, by type 32Figure 52: Damages by judgment type, awarded 2000-2016 33Figure 53: Median damages, 2000-2016, by year and type 33

PTAB

Figure 54: IPR and CBM petitions filed, 2012-2016, by month 34Figure 55: Trial Flow, PTAB IPR petitions, filed 2012 - 2016 and and terminated in 2016 34

ITC

Figure 56: ITC investigations filed, 2007-2015 35Figure 57: ITC dispositive outcomes, by current ALJ, investigations noticed and terminating

2007-2015 35

Using Boxplots to Understand Timing 36

Lex Machina Product Enhancements in 2016 37

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 vii

Lex Machina’s Data, Methodology, and TerminologyThis report draws on data from Lex Machina’s proprietary intellectual property litigation database. Although some of our data is derived from litigation information publicly available from PACER (federal court system), EDIS (the ITC system), or the PTAB website, Lex Machina applies additional layers of intelligence to bring consistency to, and ensure the completeness of, the data. Beyond the automation, key areas of Lex Machina’s data are either human-reviewed or hand-coded by a dedicated team of attorneys to ensure accuracy. This report analyzes trends in patent litigation. To determine whether a case is a patent case, others may blindly trust the Cause-of-Action (CoA) and Nature- of-Suit (NoS) codes entered in PACER. But Lex Machina actively analyzes complaints to ensure that patent cases filed under mistaken CoA/NoS codes (or a CoA/NoS code corresponding to a different claim, e.g. contract in a combined patent/contract case) are not missed. This same system also allows Lex Machina to filter out the many spurious cases that have no claim of patent infringement despite bearing a patent CoA/NoS code (e.g. false marking cases). Moreover, due to inherent design limitations, PACER often shows inaccurate or corrupted information for older terminated cases. For example, when a lawyer leaves one firm for another, PACER may show closed cases that the lawyer worked on at the old firm as having been handled by the new firm. When combined with law firm splits, acquisitions, and mergers, these inaccuracies accumulate to render PACER data less reliable for older cases. Lex Machina, however, has a historic record going back to the first days of electronic filing on PACER (and other data going back even further). These snapshots, unique to Lex Machina, give us access to normalized contemporary data and enable us to provide more accurate data for older cases than someone using PACER today. Lex Machina’s data is focused on the lower courts (District Courts, PTAB, and ITC) and does not include appeals or modifications of judgments on appeal.

What is an ANDA case? The sale of new drugs in the United States is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pharmaceutical companies launching new, branded drugs must file NDAs (New Drug Applications). The FDA also approves applications for new generic drugs, and makers may file abbreviated applications, either an ANDA or paper NDA (hybrid of a full NDA and an ANDA, also known as a “Section 505(b) (2)” application).

These abbreviated applications assert that the generic is a duplicate of a branded drug (ANDA) or differs from a branded drug but meets safety and efficacy standards based on published studies (paper NDA). Although ANDA and paper NDA cases differ in some important respects, this report considers them together as “ANDA cases” as they represent less than 3% of Hatch-Waxman litigation. The Hatch-Waxman Act put in place the expedited approval processes for generics and in doing so launched a new type of patent litigation — cases with accused infringing products that are not yet on the market or even approved by the FDA at the time the lawsuit is filed. These cases are often tried by a judge and the generic maker frequently stipulates to infringement. The remedies sought often include injunctions with specific date bounds. Lex Machina identifies as ANDA cases those patent infringement cases prompted by the filing of an ANDA or paper NDA by a prospective generic maker. This definition, however, does not include cases involving investigational new drugs, over-the-counter drugs or any process or product not requiring FDA approval, therapeutic biologic applications (biosimilars), or generics authorized by the branded drug maker.

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 20161

Overview

Figure 1: New cases filed, 2007-2016, by year

Note: All charts reflect patent litigation in the U.S. District Courts except where otherwise stated.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Cas

es fi

led

4,533

3,578

6,128

5,090

5,821

2,5552,580

5,470

2,7812,776

Figure 2: New cases filed, 2016, by month

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonth

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Cas

es fi

led

376

390390

279

400

354

294

412414

458 456

310

Lex Machina – Patent Litigation Year in Review 2016 2

In 2016, 4,537 patent cases were filed - a 22% decline from 2015.

Cases were filed relatively evenly the last three quarters of 2016. The first quarter may be somewhat lower due to a spike in November and December 2015 corresponding to a rule change that eliminates Form 18, the form often used to plead direct infringement claims in patent cases.

Figure 3: New cases filed, 2007-2016, by month

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Cas

es fi

led

847

688

469

509518

445 442422

415 408

444448

396

466

391

305307376

436

308 283

520501

406 390390

522

321

281

495

279

490

171

400

196

568

400

344 354

612602

270

233

484

204

170

426406

224

405

294

412

508

242216

214

414

233

211

386

358

458

212

346

171

252

456

236

549

173

343

283

238

215

222 206206

255

222

310339

226

555

202

510

658

391

228

200218

255

336276

578

334

310

247197

539

205

368

240 252

529

200238

Figure 4: New cases filed, 2016 vs recent years, by month, cumulative

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonth

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Cas

es fi

led

658 490

415

469

456

422414

520

501

391

310

336

495

426

281

376

408400

412

279

334

444

602

847

555

578

339

396

310

458

549

294

354

442 343

346

518

390

522

510

390

Year2013201420152016


Figure 5: Defendant-case pairs, 2008-2016, by month

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Month / Year

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Def

enda

nt-c

ase

pairs

2,955

1,0661,056

892 876

1,335

834

1,406

736

1,334

713685

654

896

1,089

864876

1,220

905

527

878

1,200

799

929 908

764

775888

907869

744

743

974

810852

554431

624736786

648

959

664922

645633602

672

831636

830933 979

769680629

904971

498

1,064

594

809680

748

710

757 883966

1,044

801674720

560 600

867

552

1,071

626652540

728

1,052

726 751

9/16/2011 AIA ef fective

The America Invents Act (AIA), which became effective in September 2011, limited the number of defendants a plaintiff could sue in a single case. These anti-joinder provisions make case filing rates from before its enactment in 2011 incomparable with those from afterwards. For example, the AIA’s restriction on suing multiple defendants in the same case means that a plaintiff would have to file more patent cases in 2016 than it would have in 2010 to sue the same number of defendants. In order to understand the increase in litigation and what happens afterwards, it helps to count litigation in a way that is not affected by the AIA’s change of rules, such as counting each defendant in a case separately (counting defendant-case pairs).

Measured by defendant-case pairs, the AIA did not dramatically reduce patent case filings, as the quarters from late 2011 to mid 2013 follow a trajectory consistent with those from 2009 to early 2011. This data also shows that litigation dropped in the last half of 2014 to a level more commensurate with 2009 and 2010 than the raw case filings alone would suggest.

The dramatic spike seen in late 2011 corresponds to the large number of cases filed in a small number of days against numerous defendants; this spike coincided with the effective date of the AIA’s joinder provisions.


U.S. District Courts

Figure 6: New cases in 2016, by district

E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. D.N.J. N.D.Cal. N.D.Ill. S.D.N.Y. S.D.Fla. S.D.Cal. D.Mass.

0

500

1000

1500

Cas

es fi

led

in 2

016

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

% c

hang

e fro

m 2

015

1,662

455

188187 247107 133

290

91 61

-34.6%

-16.5%

-31.3%

-17.9%

-30.5%

-14.1%

51.5%

13.8%

-3.0%

0.8%

Figure 7: New cases pie, 2016, by district

188 cases4.1%

N.D.Cal.

290 cases6.4%

C.D.Cal.

455 cases10.0%D.Del.

247 cases5.4%

N.D.Ill.

1,662 cases36.7%

E.D.Tex.

1,691 cases37.3%

Other districts

Top Districts


Patent litigation is very unevenly distributed between the districts.

The Eastern District of Texas continues to lead the nation by number of new cases filed in 2016 - 1,662 cases were filed there in 2016, representing a 34% decrease over the district’s 2015 total (2,541 cases).

The Eastern District of Texas saw 36.7% of the cases filed in 2016, and that percentage increased each quarter. For comparison, Delaware, the next most popular district, saw less 10%. In 2016, the number of cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, plus those filed in the District of Delaware, is approximately equal to the number of cases filed in all other districts combined.

New case filings in the District of Delaware, historically the second top district, continued to decline further in 2016 by 16.5% over 2015 (itself a 42.4% decrease over 2014).

Figure 8: Net increase (left) and decrease (right) in new cases filed in 2016

0 20 40 60 80 100Delta (2016)

N.D.Ill.

W.D.N.C.

E.D.Wis.

E.D.Mich.

S.D.Cal.

84 cases51.5%

20 cases142.9%

13 cases81.3%

12 cases24.5%

11 cases13.8%

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0Delta (2016)

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

D.N.J.

N.D.Tex.

S.D.N.Y.

-879 cases-34.6%

-90 cases-16.5%

-85 cases-31.3%

-65 cases-56.5%

-47 cases-30.5%

Figure 9: New cases, 2007-2016, by year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Cas

es fi

led

D.Del.

E.D.Tex.

C.D.Cal.N.D.Cal.

Label (copy)C.D.Cal.D.Del.E.D.Tex.N.D.Cal.N.D.Ill.Other districts


Figure 10: New cases in D. Del. and E.D.Tex., by year and plaintiff volume class, cases filed 2011-2016

2011 Q1 2011 Q3 2012 Q1 2012 Q3 2013 Q1 2013 Q3 2014 Q1 2014 Q3 2015 Q1 2015 Q3 2016 Q1 2016 Q3 2017 Q1Quarter / Year

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

All otherdistricts

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

Volume classHigh-Volume PlaintiffLow-Volume Plaintiff

High volume plaintiffs file the majority of cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Two patterns emerge: first, high volume plaintiff litigation is more more variable (spikey) than low volume litigation, which is flatter and therefore more consistent and predictable over time. Second, high volume litigation is variable in the preference for districts - preferring Delaware around 2012-2013 and later the Eastern District of Texas from 2014 onwards.

Lex Machina defines a high volume plaintiff as a plaintiff who has filed at least 10 cases within a 365 day span.

Subscribers can now explore trends related this phenomenon - just filter down to (or exclude) high volume plaintiffs!

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&case_tags-include=322&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2017-02-24&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&case_tags-include=322&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2017-02-24&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir


Figure 11: Percentage change by quarter in cases filed in 2016 by top district2014 2015 2016

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

All otherdistricts

0%

20%

40%

60%%

of c

ases

file

d

0%

20%

40%

60%

% o

f cas

es fi

led

0%

20%

40%

60%

% o

f cas

es fi

led

370 cases29%

535 cases36%

206 cases18%

316 cases28%

550 cases37%

839 cases50%

434 cases39%

718 cases46%

293 cases30%

474 cases37%

428 cases38%

467 cases40%

264 cases20% 262 cases

18%


16% 152 cases10% 100 cases

6%


10%134 cases

10%107 cases

10%

147 cases13%67 cases

7%


47%


56% 770 cases52%

727 cases44%


44%

603 cases63%

682 cases53%


47%


A Quantitative Look at the Eastern District of Texas

In the last two years, approximately 35-40 percent of patent cases filed in the United States are filed in the Eastern District of Texas. See Fig. 11, left.

The concentration of litigation in the Eastern District of Texas is driven by few parties filing large numbers of cases - the high volume plaintiffs. See Fig. 10.

2011 Q1 2011 Q3 2012 Q1 2012 Q3 2013 Q1 2013 Q3 2014 Q1 2014 Q3 2015 Q1 2015 Q3 2016 Q1 2016 Q3 2017 Q1Quarter / Year

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

All otherdistricts

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

Volume classHigh-Volume PlaintiffLow-Volume Plaintiff

The district does not disproportionately favor plaintiffs on the merits - the ratio of claimant win to claim defendant win is similar to other districts.

But far more cases settle in E.D.Tex. relative to elsewhere (89% vs 70% in other districts in patent cases terminated 2015-2016).

Claimant Win ClaimDefendant Win

LikelySettlement

Procedural

E.D.Tex.

Otherdistricts

0K

2K

4K

6K

Cas

es

0K

2K

4K

6K

Cas

es

3,623 cases89.0%

337 cases8.3%60 cases

1.5%49 cases

1.2%5,168 cases

70.3%

1,324 cases18.0%463 cases

6.3%397 cases

5.4%

Many of the top plaintiffs prefer E.D.Tex. and most top defendants are sued in E.D.Tex. See Figs. 32-33.

Rank Name Top court % cases in topcourt

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Total cases

1 Shipping and Transit, LLC S.D.Fla. 58.9%2 Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Uniloc USA, Inc. E.D.Tex. 100.0%4 Sportbrain Holdings LLC N.D.Ill. 100.0%5 Blackbird Tech LLC D.Del. 100.0%

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC E.D.Tex. 14.6%7 Guyzar, LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Symbology Innovations, LLC E.D.Tex. 48.6%9 T-Rex Property AB N.D.Ill. 42.4%10 Codec Technologies LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. E.D.Tex. 100.0%12 Pherah LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%13 Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC D.Del. 100.0%

Solocron Education, LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%15 Whirlpool Corporation E.D.Tex. 100.0%

107 cases87 cases87 cases


35 cases35 cases


30 cases29 cases29 cases28 cases

Rank Name Top court % cases in t..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Total cases

1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. E.D.Tex. 45.9%2 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. E.D.Tex. 45.2%3 LG Electronics, Inc. E.D.Tex. 53.6%4 Apple Inc. E.D.Tex. 38.5%5 Amazon Web Services, Inc. E.D.Tex. 91.3%6 ASUS Computer International E.D.Tex. 40.9%7 Huawei Device USA Inc. E.D.Tex. 66.7%

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. E.D.Tex. 61.9%Vadata, Inc. E.D.Tex. 100.0%

10 Actavis Inc. D.Del. 50.0%Amazon.com, Inc. D.Del. 20.0%AT&T Mobility LLC E.D.Tex. 60.0%

13 Apotex Inc. D.Del. 78.9%HTC America, Inc. E.D.Tex. 52.6%Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. E.D.Tex. 68.4%Microsoft Corporation E.D.Tex. 31.6%Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. D.Del. 36.8%Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. D.Del. 57.9%

37 cases31 cases

28 cases26 cases

23 cases22 cases



19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases

Figure 12: Case resolutions, E.D.Tex. vs other districts


What explains this high settlement rate?

Cases filed 2013-2015† in the Eastern District of Texas are less likely to see a granted summary judgment motion. The corresponding risk and cost of facing trial may drive settlement.

† This time frame was chosen because cases typically take about 1-3 years to reach summary judgment.

Not only are summary judgment motions less likely to be granted in E.D.Tex., but summary judgment motions are less likely to be filed in the first place.

Several judges in the Eastern District of Texas (including Judge Gilstrap - who alone is assigned an astonishing percentage of patent cases - see Fig. 28) have until recently required parties to file a 5 page letter brief seeking permission before even filing for summary judgment.* In cases where this permission is not granted, no summary judgment motion is filed.

Although these procedures have been justified as judicial efficiency, the effect is to make the chances of a successful summary judgment even lower, and to obscure by how much (as motions not filed do not count as denied).

No rule requires disclosure of settlement terms, therefore no reliable, unbiased data can be compiled on the economic consequences of this elevated settlement rate.

E.D.Tex. Other districts combined

Granted Denied Partial Granted Denied Partial0%

50%

100%

% o

f ord

ers

on S

J m

otio

ns

121

orde

rs72

%

36 o

rder

s21

%

12 o

rder

s7%

305

orde

rs37

%

354

orde

rs43

%

157

orde

rs19

%

Figure 13: Summary judgment grant rate in cases filed 2013-2015

Figure 14: Cases filed 2013-2015

District

E.D.Tex. Other ..0K

2K

4K

6K

8K

10K

12K

Cas

es fi

led

2013

-201

5

11,576

5,464

Figure 15: Cases filed 2013-2015 with a summary judgment motion filed

District

E.D.Tex. Other ..0

200

400

600

800

Cas

es fi

led

2013

-201

5 wi

th S

J m

otio

n 798

150

District

E.D.Tex. Other ..0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

% o

f cas

es w

ith S

J m

otio

n

2.7%

6.9%

Figure 16: Percentage of cases where a summary judgment motion is filed

* See https://www.law360.com/articles/820536/gilstrap-eases-filing-of-patent-summary-judgment-motions

https://www.law360.com/articles/820536/gilstrap-eases-filing-of-patent-summary-judgment-motions




Timing and Motions in Top Districts and Nationally

Lex Machina’s timing analytics can help companies and counsel alike by providing data with which to make key decisions about strategy and budgeting.

For example, litigants in both Central and Northern Districts of California can budget less time and money on claim construction, as those districts saw faster median times to claim construction (about a year) than any of the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, or the national average (all a year and a half).

However, when it comes to trials, Delaware and Eastern Texas offer less variability - 75% of trials in both districts occur several months before the same can be said of either California districts. Of the districts, Central California shows the most variability, more so than the national average, making it less predictable and more difficult to budget for.

Figure 17: For top districts, cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2016

District

National E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal.0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Cas

es re

achi

ng cl

aim

con

stru

ctio

n

2,387

165 215

420540


Figure 18: For top districts, timing by cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2016

District

National E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Tim

e to

cla

im c

onst

ruct

ion

hear

ing

/ yea

rs

1.0

1.6

2.3

1.0

1.3

1.7

1.2

1.5

2.0

0.81.0

1.3

0.9

1.2

1.6


Figure 19: For top districts, cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching trial in 2012-2016

District


100

200

300

400

500

600

Cas

es re

achi

ng tr

ial

605

13093

2744

Figure 20: For top districts, timing by cases filed 2005-2015 and reaching trial in 2012-2016District


1

2

3

4

5

6

Tim

e to

tria

l

1.8

2.4

3.3

1.7

2.1

2.8

1.92.1

2.6

1.4

2.1

3.5

1.9

2.3

2.8


Figure 21: For top districts, timing and success of motions to stay pending PTAB decided 2015-2016

E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal. Other districts combined

Denied Granted Partial Denied Granted Partial Denied Granted Partial Denied Granted Denied Granted Partial

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ord

ers

on m

otio

ns

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Tim

e to

dec

isio

n fro

m o

peni

ng m

otio

n

15 orders41%

21 orders57%

1 orders3%

20 orders40%

28 orders56%

2 orders4%

30 orders81%

6 orders16% 1 orders

3%

19 orders40%

29 orders60%

35 orders26%

92 orders69%

7 orders5%

83 days

56 days44 days

150 days

51 days

38 days30 days

37 days32 days

82 days

51 days 48 days38 days 35 days

Lex Machina’s platform allows users to track and analyze other types of motions, including motions to dismiss, motions to stay, and summary judgment motions. When considering the expense of filing a motion to stay pending PTAB, companies and litigators should know the likelihood of winning the motion - which turns out to differ depending on the district.

Of motions to stay pending PTAB decided in 2015 and 2016, the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California had similar grant rates of 55-60%, while the Central District of California districts denied motions to stay pending PTAB at a higher rate.

Budgeting can also be affected by timing - for example, the Northern District of California is slower to decide than Central District of California.


Design Patent Litigation

Figure 22: Asserted patents, by design (orange) or utility (blue), by quarter, 2007-2016

2007 Q3 2008 Q3 2009 Q3 2010 Q3 2011 Q3 2012 Q3 2013 Q3 2014 Q3 2015 Q3 2016 Q3Quarter/ Year

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

# of

pat

ents

ass

erte

d

876

1,301

949

1,2831,3221,322

1,644

1,271 1,266

1,3461,346 1,356

1,6111,606

1,223

1,379 1,387

1,2131,209

1,396

1,205

1,415

1,057

1,5401,536

1,433

1,531

1,437

1,1611,161

1,1531,083

1,146

1,459 1,468

1,103

1,1301,1091,119

1,483

171110

111

113 116104 117 119

7474120 100100 9999

144

122

143 123

97

142124124124

79

141125

80

126

9481

12793

83

129

8490 85

131

86

Design patentsUtility patents

Figure 23: Top districts, by new cases including one or more design patents, 2007-2016 (and showing percentage change from 2015)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Cases filed

C.D.Cal.

S.D.N.Y.

N.D.Ill.

S.D.Cal.

D.N.J.

D.Colo.

N.D.Cal.

S.D.Fla.

E.D.Tex.

N.D.Ohio

375 cases f iled since 201165 cases f iled in 2016

+4.8% from 2015


+4.3% from 2015


+77.8% f rom 2015


+0.0% f rom 2015

58 cases f iled since 20119 cases f iled in 2016+800.0% from 2015

55 cases f iled since 20116 cases f iled in 2016-25.0% f rom 2015


+16.7% from 2015

47 cases f iled since 20119 cases f iled in 2016-25.0% from 2015


-16.7% f rom 2015

43 cases f iled since 20117 cases f iled in 2016+75.0% f rom 2015

Although comprising a smaller fraction of the litigated patents, design patent litigation is far more consistent than utility patent litigation. Design patent litigation remains highly concentrated in the Central District of California, and that district saw its total increase 4.8% over 2015. The Southern District of New York, still in a distant second place, saw its share increase by 4.3%.


ANDA Litigation

Figure 24: New ANDA cases, by year, 2007-2016

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AND

A ca

ses f

iled 316

468

295292

433

263260

236

Figure 25: New ANDA cases, by month, 2013-2016

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Quarter / Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AND

A ca

ses f

iled

67

6259

30 30

3229

2933

33

28

3434

34

53

27

35

10

3636

2525 2525

11

37 37

50

2424

24

38

49

39

22

14

40

47

212020

1919 19 191919

18

Lex Machina enables users to track and analyze ANDA litigation. ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Application) cases are related to the filing of these drug applications at the FDA. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides a streamlined process with specific timelines for litigation triggered by the application process. ANDA cases rose sharply in 2014 into 2015, but have declined in 2016 to a level more commensurate with 2010-2011. ANDA litigation is heavily concentrated in the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware, each of which has had significantly more cases filed than the all districts below the top ten.

Lex Machina will be releasing our third Hatch-Waxman Report in later this spring - make sure to get a copy for updated data and more analysis!


Figure 26: Top districts, by new ANDA cases filed, 2009-2016

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200ANDA cases filed

D.Del.

D.N.J.

Districts other than topten (combined)

S.D.N.Y.

N.D.W.Va.

S.D.Ind.

N.D.Ill.

D.Md.

E.D.Tex.

D.Nev.

S.D.Fla.

1,065 cases

830 cases

215 cases

158 cases

57 cases

52 cases

51 cases

38 cases

37 cases

30 cases

30 cases

Figure 27: Top districts, by new ANDA cases filed in 2016 (and percentage change from 2015)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160ANDA cases filed in 2016

D.Del.

D.N.J.

E.D.Va.

S.D.Ind.

E.D.Tex.

N.D.W.Va.

N.D.Ill.

N.D.Tex.

D.Nev.

E.D.N.Y.

151 cases-19.7%

109 cases-44.4%

17 cases750.0%

8 cases33.3%

7 cases0.0%

6 cases-71.4%

4 cases-50.0%

4 cases33.3%

3 cases0.0%

2 cases0.0%


Figure 28: Top Article III judges, by new cases filed in 2016

Judges

The top judges reflect the busiest districts: the charts are topped by judges from the Eastern District of Texas and from the District of Delaware.

Judge Gilstrap of E.D.Tex. has an astounding 1,119 cases assigned to him in 2016 - the fourth year in a row that he has had the most patent cases of any judge. Judge Gilstrap’s large caseload comes in part from him being assigned a large percentage of cases filed in the court’s Marshall Division.

Judge Gilstrap’s large number of cases also put him at the top of the charts for most cases with findings and summary judgments. However, Judge Andrews of the District of Delaware is second on both lists.

* See, e.g., Eastern District of Texas, General Order Assigning Criminal and Civil Actions (No. 16-7, July 15, 2016) assigning Judge Gilstrap 95% of civil litigation (including patents) filed in the Marshall Division, all Marshall Division Criminal cases, as well as ad additional 20% of Texarkana civil cases (including patent) AND 30% of the patent cases filed in the Tyler division. See, e..g. http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=25551

Rank Judge Name Home District

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200Cases

1 Rodney Gilstrap E.D.Tex.2 Robert Schroeder E.D.Tex.3 Leonard Stark D.Del.4 Gregory Sleet D.Del.5 Richard Andrews D.Del.6 Sue Robinson D.Del.7 Amos Mazzant E.D.Tex.8 George Wu C.D.Cal.9 James Selna C.D.Cal.10 Andrew Guilford C.D.Cal.

S. Otero C.D.Cal.12 David Godbey N.D.Tex.

John Kronstadt C.D.Cal.14 Roy Dalton M.D.Fla.15 Barbara Lynn N.D.Tex.

1,119488

146125120

9151

3631282826262423

Figure 29: Top magistrate judges, by new cases filed in 2016

Rank Magistrate Name Home District

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Cases

1 Roy Payne E.D.Tex.2 John D. Love E.D.Tex.3 Christopher J. Burke D.Del.4 K. Nicole Mitchell E.D.Tex.5 Jean P. Rosenbluth C.D.Cal.6 Nathanael Cousins N.D.Cal.7 Mark Falk D.N.J.8 Caroline M. Craven E.D.Tex.9 Karen M. Williams D.N.J.

Michael R. Wilner C.D.Cal.Tonianne J. Bongiovanni D.N.J.

12 Douglas E. Arpert D.N.J.E.D.Va.

14 Gregory J. Kelly M.D.Fla.15 Suzanne H. Segal C.D.Cal.

76891

7765

4036333028282827272625

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=25551

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view_document.cgi?document=25551


Figure 30: Top judges, by cases reaching decisions on patent infringement, validity, or enforceability in 2016

Figure 31: Top judges, by cases having summary judgment on patent infringement, validity, or enforceability (showing judges having 3 or more) in 2016


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Cases

1 Rodney Gilstrap E.D.Tex.2 Richard Andrews D.Del.3 Jerome Simandle D.N.J.4 Leonard Stark D.Del.5 Gregory Sleet D.Del.6 Sue Robinson D.Del.7 John Kronstadt C.D.Cal.8 Beth Freeman N.D.Cal.9 James Selna C.D.Cal.

Robert Schroeder E.D.Tex.

6436

2824

2015

109

77


0 5 10 15 20 25 30Cases

1 Rodney Gilstrap E.D.Tex.2 Richard Andrews D.Del.3 Leonard Stark D.Del.4 Beth Freeman N.D.Cal.

John Kronstadt C.D.Cal.6 Ann Montgomery D.Minn.

Edward Chen N.D.Cal.Jon Tigar N.D.Cal.Manuel Real C.D.Cal.Paul Maloney W.D.Mich.William Alsup N.D.Cal.

2710

655

333333


Parties

The top plaintiffs of 2016 include Shipping and Transit (see next box), Uniloc, and Sportbain Holdings. The top ten plaintiffs are all patent monetization entities (PMEs),* The only company shown above in the top 15 that is not a PME is Whirlpool Corp, ranked 15th. Prior to 2015, Whirlpool was not a high-volume plaintiff and never filed more than 5 cases in a calendar year. However, in 2015 Whirlpool filed 14 patent cases, followed by 28 in 2016. Samsung remains the top defendant with 37 patent cases filed against it in 2016. Samsung topped the chart last year in 2015 with 64 cases as well). Apple, the leading defendant in 2013 and 2014, defended fewer cases in 2016 (26 cases) than LG Electronics (28 cases). It is worth noting that, even as top defendant in 2016, Samsung has been sued significantly less (37 cases in 2016) than the top defendant of previous years (e.g. 2015, Samsung had 64 cases, 2014 Apple had 58 cases, and in 2013 Apple had 59 cases). Each party is shown alongside the district in which the majority of their cases appear (the top court) and the percentage of the party’s 2016 cases filed in that court.

The majority of both plaintiffs and defendants have the Eastern District of Texas as their top court. The only other court that appears as the top court for the listed defendants is the District of Delaware.

* The top plaintiffs are all considered as “High-volume plaintiffs” by definition, as each brought more than 10 cases within the 365 day span that was 2016.

Figure 32: Top plaintiffs, by new cases in 2016Rank Name Top court % cases in top

court

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Total cases

1 Shipping and Transit, LLC S.D.Fla. 58.9%2 Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Uniloc USA, Inc. E.D.Tex. 100.0%4 Sportbrain Holdings LLC N.D.Ill. 100.0%5 Blackbird Tech LLC D.Del. 100.0%

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC E.D.Tex. 14.6%7 Guyzar, LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Symbology Innovations, LLC E.D.Tex. 48.6%9 T-Rex Property AB N.D.Ill. 42.4%10 Codec Technologies LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%

Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. E.D.Tex. 100.0%12 Pherah LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%13 Digital Audio Encoding Systems, LLC D.Del. 100.0%

Solocron Education, LLC E.D.Tex. 100.0%15 Whirlpool Corporation E.D.Tex. 100.0%



35 cases35 cases



Note: Top party charts exclude declaratory judgment cases.


Figure 33: Top defendants, by new cases in 2016Rank Name Top court % cases in t..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Total cases

1 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. E.D.Tex. 45.9%2 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. E.D.Tex. 45.2%3 LG Electronics, Inc. E.D.Tex. 53.6%4 Apple Inc. E.D.Tex. 38.5%5 Amazon Web Services, Inc. E.D.Tex. 91.3%6 ASUS Computer International E.D.Tex. 40.9%7 Huawei Device USA Inc. E.D.Tex. 66.7%

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. E.D.Tex. 61.9%Vadata, Inc. E.D.Tex. 100.0%

10 Actavis Inc. D.Del. 50.0%Amazon.com, Inc. D.Del. 20.0%AT&T Mobility LLC E.D.Tex. 60.0%

13 Apotex Inc. D.Del. 78.9%HTC America, Inc. E.D.Tex. 52.6%Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. E.D.Tex. 68.4%Microsoft Corporation E.D.Tex. 31.6%Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. D.Del. 36.8%Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. D.Del. 57.9%

37 cases31 cases

28 cases26 cases

23 cases22 cases



19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases19 cases

Figure 34: Top high volume plaintiffs by cases filed 2012-2016 (showing distribution of cases by year, with higher concentrations shown in larger red and lower concentrations in thinner blue)


Subscribers can explore up-to-date analytics that include cases filed after December 31, 2016 in Lex Machina by clicking here! *

Shipping and Transit previously did business under the name ArrivalStar. The entity has featured as a top plaintiff in previous years (as the top plaintiff of 2013 with 137 cases that year, and ranked fourth in 2015 with 65 cases). In total, the two entities have brought over 500 patent lawsuits to date, but have not prevailed on the merits in any case so far.

The median time to termination for cases brought by Shipping and Transit / ArrivalStar is only 81 days.

* Note: Live analytics may differ slightly from the charts shown here due to Lex Machina’s ongoing data quality efforts.

Party Profile: Shipping and Transit / Arrival Star

https://law.lexmachina.com/party/view?status=all&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filters=true&id=463566&id=1053282&id=512052&id=30469&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&bplots_caselist_on=terminated_on&bplot_caselist_controls=1&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/party/view?status=all&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filters=true&id=463566&id=1053282&id=512052&id=30469&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&bplots_caselist_on=terminated_on&bplot_caselist_controls=1&published_report=2016_patent_yir


Law Firms

This report considers law firms based primarily in Delaware or Texas separately from large, national (or international) firms and/or boutiques with a national reach (all classified below as “national”).

Worth noting is that the law firm with the most plaintiff-side cases in 2016, Ferraiuoli LLC defies this categorization. Ferraiuoli handled 206 cases in 2016 for plaintiffs, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas, but is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

The top national firm of 2016 by plaintiff representation was Russ, August & Kabat with 110 cases (up from fourth in last year’s ranking), followed by McCarter English with 74 cases (last report’s top firm with 121 cases in 2015). In cases filed in 2016, Russ, August & Kabat have represented LPL L Licensing and Phoenix Licensing, each of which filed more than 20 cases that year. McCarter English has represented Uniloc in 2016, along with several pharmaceutical companies (including Astrazeneca, Horizon Pharma, and Novartis). The top national firm of 2016 by defendant representation is Fish & Richardson with 160 cases – more than double the next leading firm (Winston & Strawn, 63 cases). Also among the top firms are Perkins Coie (61 cases), and Alston & Bird (51 cases). Fish & Richardson’s clients include Huawei, Apple, Nvidia, Citrix, and LG. Among Texas firms, Gilliam & Smith leads with 260 cases in 2016. Capshaw DeRieux with 216 cases and Kizzia & Johnson with 129 cases follow. Although headquartered in Los Angeles (and therefore not included in the chart below), the firm of Hipskind & Berger has had 85 cases in 2016 representing plaintiffs in Texas - enough to rank them 5th. Among Delaware firms, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell tops the list with 181 cases in 2016 (as it did last year with 251 cases in 2015). The Devlin law firm had 127 cases in 2016 for second rank, and Potter Minton 119 cases for third.

Figure 35: National law firms, by cases filed in 2016 representing plaintiffs

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Cases

1 Russ August & Kabat2 McCarter & English3 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner4 Olavi Dunne5 Zimmerman Weiser & Paray6 Pepper Hamilton7 Farney Daniels

McKool Smith9 Cotman IP Law Group10 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto11 Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss12 Fish & Richardson

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan14 Garteiser Honea15 Jones Day

110 cases74 cases

71 cases55 cases



29 cases29 cases

26 cases24 cases

Note: Excludes declaratory judgment cases.


Figure 36: National law firms, by cases filed in 2016 representing defendants

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

1 Fish & Richardson2 Winston & Strawn3 Perkins Coie4 Alston & Bird5 Baker Botts

K&L Gates7 Fenwick & West8 DLA Piper9 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati10 Duane Morris11 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan12 Greenberg Traurig13 Jones Day

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton15 Morgan Lewis & Bockius

160 cases63 cases

61 cases51 cases50 cases50 cases49 cases

44 cases42 cases41 cases40 cases39 cases


Figure 37: Texas law firms, by cases filed in 2016

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Cases

1 Gillam & Smith2 Capshaw DeRieux3 Kizzia & Johnson4 The Dacus Firm5 Chaudhari Law6 Findlay Craft7 Tadlock Law Firm8 Brandt Law Firm9 Ward & Smith Law Firm10 Wilson Robertson & Cornelius

260 cases216 cases

129 cases102 cases

98 cases82 cases


68 cases

Figure 38: Delaware law firms, by cases filed in 2016

0 50 100 150 200Cases

1 Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell2 Devlin Law Firm3 Potter Minton4 Stamoulis & Weinblatt5 Farnan

181 cases127 cases

119 cases93 cases

64 cases

Note: Totals for Delaware and Texas firms represent cases overall and are not limited to those districts.


Figure 39: Most frequently asserted patents in 2016


Note: Excludes declaratory judgment cases.

Rank Patent No. Cases Patent Title assignee inventors

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Cases

1 6415207 114 cases System and method for automatically providing vehicle statusinformation Global Res Systems Inc Jones Martin Kelly

2 6763299 110 cases Notif ication systems and methods with notif ications based uponprior stop locations Arrivalstar Inc Jones M Kelly

3 6904359 89 cases Notif ication systems and methods with user-def inablenotif ications based upon occurance of events Arrivalstar Inc Jones M Kelly

4 7400970 83 cases System and method for an advance notif ication system formonitoring and reporting proximity of a vehicle Melvino Technologies Ltd Jones Martin Kelly

5 7454002 76 cases Integrating personal data capturing functionality into a portablecomputing device and a wireless communication device Sportbrain Inc Gardner Deane; Kurobe Mitz

6 RE43462 48 cases Video monitoring and conferencing systemSchwab Barry H; WashinoKinya

Schwab Barry H; WashinoKinya

7 5845070 35 cases Security system for internet provider transaction Auric Web Systems Inc Ikudome Koichiro

8424752 35 cases System and method for presenting information about an objecton a portable electronic device Rothschild Leigh M Rothschild Leigh M

8651369 35 cases System and method for presenting information about an objecton a portable device Rothschild Leigh M Rothschild Leigh M

8936190 35 cases System and method for presenting information about an objecton a portable electronic device

Ariel Inv S Llc; RothschildLeigh M Rothschild Leigh M

11 6430603 34 casesSystem for direct placement of commercial advertising, publicservice announcements and other content on electronicbillboard displays

World Theatre Inc Hunter Charles Eric

7382334 34 cases Digital information system T Rex Property Ab Dahlgren Mats; Hylin Mats;Jonason Joakim

RE39470 34 cases Digital information system T Rex Property Ab Dahlgren Mats; Hylin Mats;Jonason Joakim

14 6690400 33 cases Graphic user interface for resources management of superoperating system based computers Flash Vos Inc Moayyad Parviz; Rafizadeh

Schumann

7356677 33 cases Computer system capable of fast switching between multipleoperating systems and applications Flash Vos Inc Rafizadeh Schumann

Lex Machina’s platform recognizes patent findings (any determination on the validity, infringement, and/or unenforceability of a patent). These findings reveal useful relationships between the type of finding and the procedural method used to reach the finding. For example, findings of infringement tend to come from either trial or from consent or default judgment, while findings of non-infringement or invalidity are more likely to have come from summary judgment.

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank, a case interpreting how 35 U.S.C § 101, the statute governing patentable subject matter, applies to computer-implemented inventions. In the wake of the decision, invalidations under § 101 have rose to record levels. Invalidations under § 101 swung wildly by quarter in 2015, but have steadily declined in 2016.


Figure 40: Patent judgment types by finding, for findings in 2016

Infringement 208 cases

No Infringement 192 cases

Invalidity 114 cases

Unenforceability 4 cases

51.9%

23.6%

7.2%

19.2%

1.6%

15.1%31.3%

6.3%48.4%

0.5%

2.6%14.9%6.1%

43.0%31.6%

1.8%

25.0%

75.0%

Consent JudgmentDefault JudgmentJudgment on the PleadingsSummary JudgmentTrialJMOL


Figure 41: Patent findings by judgment types, for findings in 2016

Consent Judgment

170 cases

Default Judgment

54 cases

Judgment on thePleadings

61 cases

Summary Judgment

137 cases

Trial

66 cases

JMOL

3 cases

63.5%4.1%

35.3%

5.6%

90.7%

5.6%

80.3%

19.7%

10.9%

26.3%

67.9%

0.7%

60.6%

25.8%

43.9%

4.5%

66.7%

33.3%

InfringementInvalidityNo InfringementUnenforceability


Figure 42: Patents invalidated, 2013-2016, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patentable subject matter, by quarter

2013 Q2 2013 Q4 2014 Q2 2014 Q4 2015 Q2 2015 Q4 2016 Q2 2016 Q4Quarter / year of finding

0

10

20

30

40

50Pa

tent

s in

valid

ated

und

er s

101

18 patents

49 patents

16 patents

11 patents

29 patents

42 patents

30 patents30 patents

9 patents

1 patents1 patents5 patents

37 patents

35 patents

3 patents3 patents

Figure 43: Patents invalidated, 2013-2016, by basis

2013 Q2 2013 Q4 2014 Q2 2014 Q4 2015 Q2 2015 Q4 2016 Q2 2016 Q4Quarter / year of finding

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pate

nts

inva

lidat

ed

Other basis112 Written Description

112 Enablement

112 Def initeness 103 Obviousness

102 Anticipation / Novelty

101 Subject Matter

6/2/2014: Nautilus decision, 6/19/2014: Alice decision Invalidity Basis101 Subject Matter102 Anticipation / Novelty103 Obviousness112 Definiteness112 Enablement112 Written DescriptionOther basis


Figure 44: Top Districts by cases with patents invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patentable subject matter (cases filed 2012-2016 with invalidity finding in 2016)

Rank District

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Cases

1 D.Del.

2 C.D.Cal.

3 N.D.Ill.

E.D.Tex.

5 S.D.Cal.

N.D.Cal.

7 W.D.Pa.

N.D.Ga.

E.D.Va.

10 S.D.N.Y.

D.Mass.

8 cases

6 cases

5 cases

5 cases

4 cases

4 cases

3 cases

3 cases

3 cases

2 cases

2 cases


PreliminaryInjunction

14 cases

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Tim

e to

rem

edy (

mon

ths)

2.0

3.8

13.5

Remedy Timing and Case Resolutions

Understanding timing data is one of the best uses of Legal Analytics - knowing if and when an injunction will be decided makes for better decision-making: clients can know when their bills will change, lawyers can plan their schedules with greater confidence, and budgets can accurately account for the costs. These charts show the median time to an event (the middle number between the shaded boxes). The median represents the middle value, where as many took longer than the median as took shorter than the median, and serves as a simple and useful average. The median time for a preliminary injunction is 3.8 months, and for permanent injunction is 11.6 months. Where the median lies in relation to the edges of the boxes also provides useful data. For example in looking at the preliminary injunction chart, the median of 3.8 months lies much closer to the top of the box (2 months) than the bottom (13.5) months. This means that timing favors an earlier issuance: the fastest half of injunctions are issued in less than 4 months while the next quarter of injunctions are spread out over 10 months, and the final quarter over even more time.

PermanentInjunction

219 cases

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tim

e to

rem

edy (

mon

ths)

5.4

11.6

23.8

Figure 45: Case reaching injunction, in cases terminating 2012-2016


Lex Machina generates a resolution for each case, reflecting how the case terminated. The majority - 74.6% - of patent cases terminating between 2009 and 2016 settled. Of those that did not, the largest block (15.3% of terminated cases) reach a procedural outcome, such as transfer or consolidation. Wins by the claimant (6.1%) are more common than wins for the claim defendant (4.0%).

Looking at cases terminating in 2016 alone, the settlement rate increased to 76.7%, mainly at the expense of claimant and claim defendant wins (5.5% and 4.0% respectively).

Figure 46: Case resolutions, in cases terminating 2009-2016

Claimant Win Claim Defendant Win Likely Settlement Procedural0K

5K

10K

15K

20K

25K

Cas

es

26,010 cases74.6%

2,141 cases6.1% 1,408 cases

4.0%

5,322 cases15.3%

Figure 47: Case resolutions, in cases terminating in 2016

Claimant Win Claim Defendant Win Likely Settlement Procedural0K

1K

2K

3K

4K

Cas

es

4,199 cases76.7%

301 cases5.5% 218 cases

4.0%

758 cases13.8%


Damages

Compensatory damages continue to be awarded in few cases, around 1.8 % of the terminated cases filed since the year 2000. 2015 saw the award of approximately $750m total in compensatory damages.

Players in the patent litigation space should be armed with knowledge of how asymmetric patent awards can be. Most individual awards are small, with a few outliers driving the high totals. Among all damages awarded in cases filed since the year 2000, 90% of the total compensatory awards in cases have been less than $9.6m, 75% less than $1.7m, and half less than approximately $170,000. Of damages granted since 2000, juries have granted about seven times more than judges ($15 billion versus $1.9 billion).

Understanding the propensity of districts to dispense damages directly impacts litigation exposure, as the amount of damages awarded varies disproportionately across districts. Relative to the number of cases filed in each jurisdiction, the Eastern District of Texas and the Southern District of California were the most generous while the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of Michigan were least generous. looking at median compensatory award per case by district, Delaware, Eastern Virginia, and Eastern Texas are the most generous, followed by a steep drop-off.

Figure 48: Cases, 2000-2016, with damages

Figure 49: Total damages awarded during 2016 in cases filed 2000-2016, by type

* Total does not include costs, attorneys fees, or pre/post-judgment interest.

Note: Some cases may include multiple causes of action, for example, both patent and trademark claims. When damages in these cases are awarded and the apportionment between claim types cannot be determined, Lex Machina classifies them as “Other / Mixed Damage Types.” These charts exclude damages explicitly based on non-patent claims and theories (e.g. trademark damages based on infringers profits), even awarded in a case with patent claims.

Live analytics may differ slightly from the charts shown here due to Lex Machina’s ongoing data quality efforts.

Cases terminated since 2000 54,429Cases terminated since 2000 on the merits 6,167 11.3% of terminated casesCases terminated since 2000 on the merits with compensatory damages

959 1.8% of terminated cases

Compensatory damages: Reasonable royalties $3,399,970,608.18 Lost profits $28,505,075.30 Other / Mixed damage types $63,396,330.03Total damages* $3,491,872,013.51

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2016-12-31&terminated_on-to=2016-12-31&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2016-12-31&terminated_on-to=2016-12-31&patent_finding-include=I&patent_finding-include=NInv&patent_finding-include=NI&patent_finding-include=NU&patent_finding-include=Inv&patent_finding-include=U&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2016-12-31&terminated_on-to=2016-12-31&remedy_damages-include=GC_OMDT&remedy_damages-include=P_RR&remedy_damages-include=P_LP&patent_finding-include=I&patent_finding-include=NInv&patent_finding-include=NI&patent_finding-include=NU&patent_finding-include=Inv&patent_finding-include=U&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=27&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2016-12-31&terminated_on-to=2016-12-31&remedy_damages-include=GC_OMDT&remedy_damages-include=P_RR&remedy_damages-include=P_LP&patent_finding-include=I&patent_finding-include=NInv&patent_finding-include=NI&patent_finding-include=NU&patent_finding-include=Inv&patent_finding-include=U&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475&published_report=2016_patent_yir


Figure 50: Median damages, 2000-2016, by year and type

Year Reasonable Royalty Lost ProfitsOther / Mixed Damage

Types Attorneys' Fees Costs

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016 $20,53277 cases

$24,44283 cases

$15,974100 cases

$34,27092 cases

$32,02885 cases

$18,75680 cases

$11,34472 cases

$21,94765 cases

$21,00982 cases

$28,74386 cases

$9,34469 cases

$19,21155 cases

$17,29850 cases

$17,63235 cases

$10,71742 cases

$9,4869 cases

$3734 cases

$57,65926 cases

$220,28733 cases

$77,56333 cases

$118,32122 cases

$96,24027 cases

$88,62934 cases

$47,03330 cases

$94,68838 cases

$50,79634 cases

$221,70830 cases

$37,36928 cases

$39,18229 cases

$190,00029 cases

$140,63130 cases

$9,64325 cases

$39,58814 cases

$9,7655 cases

$67,78518 cases

$360,00013 cases

$1,800,00017 cases

$484,36022 cases

$150,50016 cases

$177,40225 cases

$127,00031 cases

$174,31226 cases

$130,00030 cases

$210,00031 cases

$250,00033 cases

$224,11728 cases

$118,07636 cases

$74,35231 cases

$51,93736 cases

$26,04316 cases

$5,00020 cases

$1,631,2318 cases

$2,541,3337 cases

$1,324,31811 cases

$5,000,0004 cases

$1,560,27315 cases

$6,836,95916 cases

$19,942,12313 cases

$3,261,07712 cases

$1,817,60317 cases

$613,33811 cases

$2,344,5128 cases

$450,00013 cases

$1,349,47211 cases

$150,0108 cases

$69,7987 cases

$14,3283 cases

$2,100,0001 cases

$3,522,60036 cases

$6,459,33128 cases

$4,800,00029 cases

$311,37929 cases

$1,975,91641 cases

$1,579,99736 cases

$2,172,61731 cases

$3,714,81836 cases

$2,743,80042 cases

$973,36035 cases

$1,201,79121 cases

$1,738,55724 cases

$1,443,68623 cases

$450,64724 cases

$697,79310 cases

$292,7227 cases

$129,8403 cases

$0.10M $1.00M $10.00M $100.00M $1,000.00MDamages amount (shown on truncated logarithmic scale)

ReasonableRoyalty

Lost Profits

Other / MixedDamage Types

25P: $188K

25P: $158K

25P: $25K

Max: $2,540.00M

Max: $1,168.47M

Max: $1,725.00M

90P: $48.43M

90P: $47.97M

90P: $6.77M

Median: $1.84M

Median: $1.60M

Median: $0.12M

75P: $13.7M

75P: $9.8M

75P: $1.0M

Figure 51: Damages percentiles, 2000-2016, by type

Note: In cases where multiple damages awards were made in separate years, the total sum is reflected under the most recent year.


Figure 52: Damages by judgment type, awarded 2000-2016

Judgment Type

Consent Judgment Default Judgment Judge Jury Trial$0M

$5,000M

$10,000M

$15,000M

$20,000M

Dam

ages

awa

rded

138 cases11.4% of damages

$2,596M


$17,826M


$1,787M268 cases

2.3% of damages$517M

$0M $2M $4M $6M $8M $10M $12M $14M $16M $18M $20MMedian compensatory damages per case

D.Del.

E.D.Tex.

E.D.Va.

D.Mass.

S.D.Cal.

N.D.Cal.

N.D.Tex.

E.D.Mich.

D.Utah

D.N.J.

W.D.Wash.

D.Minn.

N.D.Ohio

C.D.Cal.

N.D.Ill.

S.D.N.Y.

N.D.Ga.

M.D.Fla.

D.Colo.

$7.37M111 cases with damages



















National median: $786,698

Note: Includes costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Figure 53: Median damages, 2000-2016, by year and type

Note: In cases where multiple damages awards were made in separate years, the total sum is reflected under the most recent year.


Figure 54: IPR and CBM petitions filed, 2012-2016, by month

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Month / Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

CBM

and

IPR

revie

w pe

titio

ns

107106102

114101

100

17

116 117

96

120

2424 26 27

89

30

31

184

131131131

182

132

179

136136

136

38

177

138

77

139

7673

143

45

145 145

69

26

166

148

165

149

164

65

22

10 1010

1010

21

1111

9 9 99 9

54

1212

88 8

8

62

1

19 19

1313

77

154159

22 2

18

14 146

6

155

60

33

1715

55 55

44

1616

16

Trial typeCBMIPR

PTAB

The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board), was created by the America Invents Act and began hearing petitions for Covered Business Method reviews (CBMs) and Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) on September 16, 2012, the first day the procedure was available.

IPR activity declined slightly in 2015 but remains much more similar to 2014 than previous years. Lex Machina’s trial flow diagram provides insight into how the PTAB is disposing of petitions. Showing the flow of cases from the filing of a petition all the way through final written decision (but also including settlement and procedural outcomes) allows practitioners to easily understand the likelihood of each result.

See Lex Machina’s upcoming PTAB report for a deeper analysis of PTAB in 2016.

Figure 55: Trial Flow, PTAB IPR petitions, filed 2012 - 2016 and and terminated in 2016

Subscribers can click here to explore further, but note that live analytics may differ slightly from the charts shown here due to Lex Machina’s ongoing data quality efforts.

https://law.lexmachina.com/court/ptab/cases/?status=all&trial_types-include=204&trial_types-include=205&filing_date-from=2012-09-16&filing_date-to=2017-02-12&termination_date-from=2016-01-01&termination_date-to=2016-12-31&filters=true&tab=ptab_trial_flow&view=analytics&published_report=2016_patent_yir

https://law.lexmachina.com/court/ptab/cases/?status=all&trial_types-include=204&trial_types-include=205&filing_date-from=2012-09-16&filing_date-to=2017-02-12&termination_date-from=2016-01-01&termination_date-to=2016-12-31&filters=true&tab=ptab_trial_flow&view=analytics&published_report=2016_patent_yir


Disposition Bar

ton

Bul

lock

Cha

rnes

k i

Esse

x

Gild

ea

Har

ris

Lord

Luck

ern

Pend

er

Rog

ers

Shaw

Cease & Desist Order

Complaint Withdrawn

Consent Order

General Exclusion Order

Limited Exclusion Order

No Violation Found

Other

Settlement

Violation Found 2

10

3

5

4

2

1

4

2

4

23

15

6

1

4

9

4

1

11

2

2

2

1

8

2

8

18

3

12

5

4

5

5

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

25

8

4

3

6

6

2

11

29

2

14

10

5

6

10

10

9

16

1

5

11

2

2

5

7

6

31

4

14

11

5

7

7

7

2

2

1

3

1

3

Figure 56: ITC investigations filed, 2007-2015

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ITC

337

Inve

stig

atio

ns

71

42

4140

3936

54

3432

57

Figure 57: ITC dispositive outcomes, by current ALJ, investigations noticed and terminating 2007-2015

ITC


Using Boxplots to Understand Timing

Lex Machina’s analytics use a data visualization known as the boxplot to convey information about the timing of significant events in a case. Knowing how to interpret this data gives you an advantage when it comes to strategy, budgeting, and setting expectations, as well as in other decisions that involve case timing.

Consider a newly filed case: Regardless of whether you’re an outside counsel, say, trying to determine how large of a flat fee to charge or trying to make sure two trials don’t overlap, or an inside counsel estimating legal spend and evaluating a firm’s proposed budget, case timing matters. Knowing the lower and upper bounds of how long it may reasonably take the case to reach injunction can give both kinds of counsel a strategic advantage over opponents lacking such nuanced information. Moreover, knowing the best and worst case scenarios for timing, or exactly how likely it is that a case will be active in 6 months enables more far-sighted contingency planning.

A boxplot summarizes a series of data points to help you understand the shape, or distribution of the values in those points. The boxplot is drawn based on five numbers: the median, the upper and lower quartiles, and the whiskers for a distribution.

Paying attention to these key parts of the plot will help you quickly understand what you need to know. Although boxplots provide a wealth of information, the four observations below, in order from simplest onwards, are all one needs to easily grasp the significance of a boxplot.

Median: the middle dividing line of the box splits the data points evenly so that 50% fall to either side. It’s a form of average that gives a single number representation of what to reasonably expect.

Box bounds: the box encloses the middle-most 50% of the datapoints (from the 25th percentile to the 75th), with 25% of the datapoints falling outside to either side. This makes the box a good representation of the range one can reasonably expect.

Box compressed or elongated: a more compressed box means that more datapoints fall into a smaller range of time and therefore are more consistent; in contrast a longer box means that the datapoints are spread out over a wider time period and are therefore less predictable.

Whiskers: Whiskers are drawn to show the outside bounds of reasonable expectation, beyond which datapoints are considered outliers.1

1 By statistical convention, boxplots define outliers as points beyond more than 1.5 times the width of the box (sometimes called the “interquartile range”).


In 2016, Lex Machina rolled out new key features that give our subscribers unprecedented power to analyze and easily discern trends in the cases that matter to them.

Although we make software updates to the platform every week, below are some of the major enhancements which we introduced in 2016:

• Attorney Data Engine (Feb): Extracts attorney and law firm data from document signature blocks and Pro Hac Vice (PHV) applications.

• Mass Counterfeiter Default Damages (April): Separates trademark damages awarded against long lists of aliases and businesses (often with uncertain or overlapping real identities) when the damages are awarded as a rate (e.g. $1m against each defendant in attached schedule A).

• Orange Book Data case list columns (May): See which drugs and ingredients are at issue in ANDA cases, and which patents are related to particular drugs or ingredients.

• Securities Practice Area (June): Explore securities with findings and damages specifically designed for securities.

• Courts and Judges Comparator App (Aug): Model venue selection or transfer options with only a few clicks.

• Antitrust Practice Area (Sept): The familiar power of Lex Machina with new features, findings, and damages for antitrust cases.

• Law Firm Comparator App (Sept): Compare outside counsel on timing and results, or benchmark your firm against your competitors.

• Magistrate Judge Data (Sept): Get a more accurate intelligence on how magistrate judges run their cases.

• Multidistrict Litigation (Sept): Easily pivot between MDLed cases and the master case, or to other related cases within the same MDL proceeding.

• New Timing Events (Sept): Improve budgeting with time to contested dismissal, summary judgment or class certification.

• Parties Comparator App (Nov): Learn if your company’s legal strategy is working as well as your competitors, or demonstrate how your law firm’s clients do better than those represented by the other guy.

• Damages Explorer App (Nov): Analyze damages awards in greater detail.

• Help Center (Nov): A new help center provides better answers to common questions, as well as access for subscribers to all of Lex Machina’s published reports (like this one!)

Lex Machina is also looking forward to launching four new practice areas in 2017: Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, Products Liability, and Employment.

Lex Machina Product Enhancements in 2016

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=24&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2017-02-17&remedy_damages-include=T_MCDD&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_types-include=263&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2017-02-17&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475



https://law.lexmachina.com/apps/firm_comparison/

https://law.lexmachina.com/court/

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?status=all&case_tags-include=285&case_tags-include=284&filed_on-from=2000-01-01&filed_on-to=2017-02-17&filters=true&tab=summary&view=analytics&cols=475

https://law.lexmachina.com/cases/?filters=true&view=analytics&tab=timing&cols=475

https://law.lexmachina.com/apps/party_comparison/

https://law.lexmachina.com/apps/damages_explorer/

https://law.lexmachina.com/help

Lex Machina1010 Doyle Street, Suite 200Menlo Park, CA 94025Phone: (650) 390-9500www.lexmachina.com© 2017 Lex Machina

Documents

Lex Machina - Russ August & Kabat · PDF fileBased on the same data driving Lex Machina’s platform, this report exam - ines filing trends, case timing, motions, judges, top law firms,