2015YearinReview - Holland & Knight

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Litigation Activity Overview

The Maturing PTAB

Alice and § 101 Challenges

Januar y-December

YEAR IN REVIEW 2015

Shifting Case Outcomes

The Role of EDTX

PATENT LITIGATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A LETTER FROM OUR CEO _________________ 3

LITIGATION ACTIVITY OVERVIEW

New Patent Litigation Proceedings ________________ 6

Litigants in New Patent Cases ___________________ 7

Patent Accusations in New Patent Cases ___________ 8

New Docket Entries in Patent Litigation Proceedings __ 9

Claim Constructions __________________________ 10

District Court Patent Determinations _____________ 11

KEY PLAYERS IN DISTRICT COURT CASES

Top Patentees _______________________________ 12

Top Accused Infringers ________________________ 13

Top Patentee Firms ___________________________ 14

Top Patentee Lawyers ________________________ 15

Top Accused Infringers Firms ___________________ 16

Top Accused Infringers Lawyers _________________ 17

Top Patent Classifications ______________________ 18

COMPARISON OF COURTS AND JUDGES

Top Courts by Number of New Cases, Litigants, and Accusations ________________________________ 19

Average Time to Claim Construction by Court ______ 20

Average Time to Summary Judgment by Court _____ 21

Average Time to Trial by Court __________________ 22

Top Judges by Number of New Cases, Litigants, and Accusations ________________________________ 23

Average Time to Claim Construction by Judge ______ 24

Average Time to Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge ______________________________________ 25

Average Time to Trial by Judge __________________ 26

Comparison of Jury Trial, Bench Trial and Dispositive Motion Outcomes ____________________________ 27

IMPACT OF ALICE AND OTHER DECISIONS

Outcomes of 35 U.S.C. § 101 Challenges __________ 29

Motion Success Rates _________________________ 30

District Court Patent Determinations ______________ 32

THE MATURING PTAB

New PTAB Petitions __________________________ 33

New PTAB Petitions By Tech Code _______________ 34

PTAB Institution Decision Outcomes ______________ 35

PTAB Institution Outcomes by Asserted Unpatentability Ground ____________________________________ 38

PTAB Patent Determinations ____________________ 42

KEY PLAYERS IN THE PTAB

Top PTAB Petitioners __________________________ 44

Top Patent Owners in PTAB Proceedings __________ 45

Top Firms in the PTAB _________________________ 46

Top Attorneys in the PTAB ______________________ 48

OUR YEAR IN REVIEW ____________________ 50

ABOUT OUR METHODOLOGY _____________ 52

YEAR IN REVIEW | 2015

Page 3 ©2016 Docket Navigator. All Rights Reserved.

2015 YEAR IN REVIEW A LETTER FROM OUR CEO

DEAR FRIENDS:

As the past few years have shown, there is no “normal” year for U.S. patent litigation. 2015 was another active year, and another year of surprises. After falling slightly in 2014, the number of new patent litigation proceedings rebounded in 2015, increasing 13% overall. While the number of new U.S. district court cases increased 15% over 2014, the number of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings increased only 7%. Yet beyond those macro level statistics, the patent landscape continues to shift, prompting all members of the patent community to reevaluate business and legal strategies. In this report, we analyze patent litigation data from the U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and AIA proceedings in the PTAB to help you better understand those changes. Key findings include:

OVERALL LITIGATION ACTIVITY

The number of new patent litigation proceedings increased by 13% in 2015 and the number of litigants in those new cases increased at a similar rate, 12.6%. While these numbers suggest a growing volume of patent litigation activity, a look at a different metric – the number of infringement accusations asserted in those new cases – increased by a modest 1.3% overall and actually declined by 5.5% in the U.S. district courts. These numbers suggest that, while the number of patent cases is increasing, the complexity (and perhaps the stakes) of individual cases is decreasing. (See pages 6-11.)

THE MATURING PTAB

As the PTAB matures, outcomes have become slightly more balanced. At the institution phase, the number of net institutions (the difference between the number of claims instituted and not instituted) has dropped. However, that drop is highly dependent on the unpatentability ground asserted. Net institutions for claims challenged on anticipation grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102) dropped sharply throughout 2015, as did claims challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 112. But net institutions for claims challenged on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) remained relatively flat during the first half of 2015, then spiked sharply during the last half of the year. Net institutions for claims challenged on unpatentable subject matter grounds (35 U.S.C. § 101) rose sharply throughout 2014, but began dropping in April 2015 and continue to decline. (See pages 33-41.) Once instituted, claims are overwhelmingly found unpatentable. To date, 78.8% of PTAB proceedings to reach a final written decision resulted in one or more claims being deemed unpatentable. (See page 42.)

ALICE AND SECTION 101 CHALLENGES

Alice and the new test for patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are playing an increasingly important role in patent litigation. From the date Alice was decided through the end of 2015, U.S. district courts addressed 191 Section 101 patent challenges, 67% of which were granted in whole or part. But, importantly, results vary significantly by district. In EDTX, the success rate was only 35%. Also interesting, the timing of the motion in relation to the stage of litigation does not appear to affect the outcomes. In other words, within a specific court, the grant rate for challenges brought in the early stages of litigation is very close to the grant rate for challenges brought in a mature stage. (See page 29.)

NEW PATENT LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS 13%

COMPLEXITY OF INDIVIDUAL CASES

SECTION 101 CHALLENGES GRANTED OR PARTIALLY GRANTED 67%

§ 101 INSTITUTIONS

§ 102 INSTITUTIONS

§ 112 INSTITUTIONS

§ 103 INSTITUTIONS



SHIFTING CASE OUTCOMES

Case outcomes in U.S. district courts continue to shift against patentees. As a proportion of all determinations, 2015 saw the highest percentage of invalidity determinations and the lowest percentage of infringement determinations since 2008, both by a wide margin. (See pages 10 and 27.)

THE ROLE OF EDTX

The Eastern District of Texas remains the most popular forum for patent disputes when considering the number of new cases (44.2% of all new cases), or the number of litigants in those cases (27.9% of all litigants in new cases). But when considering the number of infringement accusations, Delaware holds the top spot (22.5% versus 19.4% for EDTX). (See page 19.)

As lawmakers, courts, and administrative agencies continue to shift the patent landscape, navigating the path to optimal legal outcomes grows more complex. We hope you find this report to be a valuable tool. If you are a Docket Navigator subscriber, we appreciate your business. We are honored and grateful for your support. If you are not a Docket Navigator subscriber and would like to learn more about our service, please visit our website or contact us anytime. Very best wishes for 2016, Darryl E. Towell CEO/Co-founder

DETERMINATIONS FAVORING PATENTEES

DETERMINATIONS FAVORING PATENT CHALLENGERS

WE WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK

Our work helping you navigate the complexities of patent litigation is just beginning. As we continue to enhance Docket Navigator services, we welcome and encourage your input. If you have any questions about this report or suggestions for making it better, please contact us at 866-352-2749 or send an email to [email protected]. Additional contact information can be found on our contact page.

44.2% OF ALL NEW CASES

http://home.docketnavigator.com/

http://home.docketnavigator.com/contact/



NEW IN 2016 EXCITING NEW FEATURES IN OUR PIPELINE

NEW MOBILE APP (Coming in February) More than twenty percent of our 13,000+ subscribers now view Docket Navigator content on a mobile device. In early 2016 we will release the Docket Navigator mobile app which will allow you to receive this content on a mobile device. The app will cover:

o The Docket Report

o Docket Alerts

o New Case Alerts

o Special Reports

Available for iOS and Android, subscribers will be able to select the type of content to receive and whether to receive push notifications.

ENHANCED USER INTERFACE (Coming Spring 2016) Navigating Docket Navigator is about to get much easier! Our new user interface features:

o A sleek new look that integrates traditional search results and new analytics tools

o Touch-friendly design that looks and works better in a mobile environment

o Virtual “binders” to help save, organize, and share research

o Pre-configured searches for answer frequently-asked questions

o Structured search assistant to simplify complex queries

EXPANDED COVERAGE (Coming Fall 2016) Every year, we expand the scope of Docket Navigator coverage. Here is a preview of some upgrades in progress for 2016.

o Expanded Federal Circuit coverage. Track U.S. district court, ITC and PTAB decisions during appeal.

o Additional Practice Areas. We’re working to expand Docket Navigator services to cover Trademark, Copyright, and other federal practice areas.



NEW PATENT LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS 2008-2015 Since 2008, the number of patent litigation proceedings has grown by 187%. After a small decline in 2014, the number of new patent litigation proceedings in 2015 increased by 13% to a record 7,597. In the district courts, the number of new patent infringement cases increased by 15%, and in the PTAB the number of AIA proceedings (IPR, CBM and PGR reviews) increased by a smaller 7%.

111792

1,677 1,797

2,612 2,570

3,3533,905

5,459

6,0945,006

5,762

36 29

56

69

43

4737

38

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)U.S. District CourtsInternational Trade Commission (ITC)

13% 15% 7% ALL PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT COURTS PTAB

Want to be notified when a new case is filed?

It’s easy to get New Case Alerts. Go to your “MY ACCOUNT” page in Docket Navigator and click “activate new case alerts”. You’ll be notified throughout the day as new patent cases are added to the database.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/account



LITIGANTS IN NEW PATENT CASES 2008-2015 The number of litigants of all types in new patent proceedings increased by 13% overall, making 2015 a record year. However, while the number of litigants in new U.S. district court cases increased 7% over 2014, 2015 still ranked below 2013, 2012, and 2011. Conversely, the number of litigants in new PTAB proceedings grew more than 30% over 2014, more than tripling the number of litigants involved in proceedings initiated in 2013.

334 2,424

5,9207,727

11,954 12,617

17,569

20,653 20,023

21,163

16,969

18,205

348 266

527

739 566

368409

304

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


13% 30% 7% ALL PROCEEDINGS PTAB DISTRICT COURTS

Want to be notified when a company is named in a patent suit?

It’s easy with a Docket Alert. When performing a cases search, just enter the company’s name and click “CREATE ALERT” at the bottom of the page. We’ll run that same search for you each weekday morning, and if there are any “hits” we will send you an email.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/e5deb6a4-0069-8861-dc66-61b3b786c1f2



PATENT ACCUSATIONS IN NEW PATENT CASES 2008-2015 With the exception of 2011, the number of accusations asserted in new patent cases has increased at a very modest rate since 2010. For 2015, the total number of accusations asserted in all new cases grew by only 1.3% over 2014 and only 10% over 2010. But the number of accusations asserted in new U.S. district court cases dropped to the lowest level since 2009. In contrast, the number of accusations in the PTAB grew by 64% in 2015, more than four and a half times the number asserted in 2013.

244 1,6524,702

7,713

17,84719,418

29,565

40,073

30,61730,651

27,131

25,6461,005

860

2,355

4,301

2,1352,138 2,730

1,660

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)US District CourtsInternational Trade Commission (ITC)

1.3% 5.5% 64% ALL PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT COURTS PTAB



NEW DOCKET ENTRIES 2008-2015 2015 was the first year since 2008 in which the total number of docket entries in patent proceedings dropped. While the total number of docket entries in U.S. district court cases dropped by about 10%, the number of docket entries in PTAB proceedings grew by 23%.

4,68144,117

110,624135,996

241,417 241,510259,791

300,690

356,009

370,921

358,046 322,963

13,615 10,53812,015

14,971

19,345

12,433

10,9739,181

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


2.4% 10% 23% ALL PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT COURTS PTAB

Would you like to be notified of any new filings on a patent case?

Go to the CASE SUMMARY PAGE and click on the Filings tab. Then click “Create Alert” at the bottom of that tab. We’ll check that tab for you every weekday and notify you of any new docket entries that we find.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/detail/summary/case/80506



CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS 2008-2015 2015 was a record year for claim constructions, increasing 18% over 2014 which was also a record year. In the U.S. district courts, the number of claims construed increased by 10%, but the PTAB recorded the largest increase of 34%. For comparison, the PTAB construed about as many terms in 2015 as all U.S. district courts combined in 2009 or 2010.

111,321

4,401

5,908

7,471

5,862 5,922 6,4127,185

8,025

8,226

9,084

40

702

206

376

397

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


18% 10% 34% ALL PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT COURTS PTAB

You can search the Docket Navigator dictionary of more than 92,000 construed claim terms by performing a TERMS SEARCH. You can even set up a Docket Alert to be notified the next time a court construes a claim by clicking “Create Alert” at the bottom of the page.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/95e79f38-0389-806b-7c5c-806ba15b3df1



DISTRICT COURT PATENT DETERMINATIONS 2008-2015 In 2015, the total number of patent determinations of all types fell by almost 16% from 2014’s record level. Yet 2015 still recorded the second highest number of patent determinations since 2008. In addition, the distribution of determinations continued to shift. The number of invalidity determinations increased by more than 53%. Conversely, the number of infringement determinations declined by almost 47%. The chart in page 32 shows the distribution of determinations each year as a percentage of total determinations within a year.

232 249 283 299422

263

547

292

218 195264

325

447

429

693

61296 95

91134

193

79

254

94

252 273

378319

509

615

540

468

149 205

226 173

303

278

359

551

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

InfringedNot invalidNot unenforceableNot infringedUnenforceableInvalid

15.8% 53.5% 46.6% ALL DETERMINATIONS INVALIDITY INFRINGEMENT

Did you know that you can use a patent determination as a search filter?

For example, you can GENERATE A LIST of all cases in which a patent claim has been found invalid.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/473f4371-ec7a-1347-9d6d-f37ab55cb26d



TOP PATENTEES In District Court Cases in 2015

102

85

69

66

62

60

57

56

51

50

50

50

49

42

40

38

36

33

33

32

31

31

30

28

27

27

26

26

25

25

eDekka LLC

Data Carriers, LLC

Shipping and Transit, LLC

CryptoPeak Solutions, LLC

Hawk Tech. Systems, LLC

Rothschild Connected DevicesInnovations, LLC

Sockeye Licensing TX LLC

Wetro Lan, LLC

Eclipse IP LLC

Oberalis LLC

Genaville LLC

Loramax LLC

ChriMar Systems, Inc.

Olivistar LLC

Motile Optics, LLC

Graham Springs LLC

Astrazeneca Pharma. LP

UrgenSync, LLC

Symbology Innovations, LLC

High Quality Printing Inventions,LLC

Encoditech LLC

Avioniqs, LLC

Trover Group, Inc.

Qommerce Systems, LLC

Verified Hiring, LLC

Unibeam Photonics, LLC

Nonend Inventions, NV

Frequency Systems, LLC

Icon Laser Solutions LLC

Ectolink, LLC

NUMBER OF NEW PATENT CASES

56

56

58

60

60

61

61

62

62

63

65

66

66

67

72

75

75

79

80

85

85

90

99

102

114

122

146

180

217

246

Wetro Lan, LLC

Nonend Inventions, NV

HZNP Limited

Roche Palo Alto LLC

Helsinn Healthcare SA

Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd.

Rothschild Connected DevicesInnovations, LLC

Ericsson, Inc.

Avioniqs, LLC

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC

Olivistar LLC

Reflection Code LLC

CryptoPeak Solutions, LLC

Purdue Pharma LP

St. Luke Technologies, LLC

Phoenix Licensing, LLC

LPL Licensing, LLC

Location Services IP, LLC

Oakley, Inc.

Data Carriers, LLC

TQ Delta LLC

Koninklijke Philips NV

Symbology Innovations, LLC

eDekka LLC

Sockeye Licensing TX LLC

Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Shipping and Transit, LLC

ChriMar Systems, Inc.

Azure Networks, LLC

Eclipse IP LLC

NUMBER OF PATENT ACCUSATIONS



TOP ACCUSED INFRINGERS In District Court Cases in 2015

14

14

14

15

16

16

16

16

16

17

18

18

18

18

20

21

25

26

26

30

31

31

32

32

32

34

36

40

45

50

55

61

BlackBerry Corporation

Panasonic Corp. of North…

Sony Mobile Comm. (USA) Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.

Target Corporation

Motorola Mobility, LLC

Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

ASUS Computer International

Google Inc.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a…

Lenovo (United States) Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Acer America Corp.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.

AT&T Mobility LLC

Microsoft Corporation

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Dell, Inc.

ZTE (USA) Inc.

HTC America, Inc.

Apotex Inc.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC

Actavis, Inc.

LG Electronics USA, Inc.

Hewlett-Packard Company

Amazon.com, Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Apple Inc.

Samsung Electronics America,…


53

53

54

56

56

58

60

61

66

67

68

70

75

76

76

76

85

94

97

105

105

106

110

132

149

162

189

192

222

229

240

247

424

Hetero USA Inc.

Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC

Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc.

Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA,…

Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc.

Paddock Laboratories, LLC

Aurobindo Pharma Limited

Acer America Corp.

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC

Sandoz Inc.

Accord Healthcare, Inc.

HEC Pharm Co., Ltd.

ASUS Computer International

Ford Motor Company


Amazon.com, Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,…

InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Dell, Inc.

HTC America, Inc.

LG Electronics USA, Inc.

ZTE (USA) Inc.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.

Hewlett-Packard Company

Apotex Inc.

Samsung Electronics…

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.

Lupin Limited

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC

Apple Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

NUMBER OF PATENT ACCUSATIONS



TOP PATENTEE FIRMS In District Court Cases in 2015

56

59

59

60

62

64

74

79

87

88

91

98

99

101

103

120

136

137

139

143

145

157

175

273

425

Collins Edmonds…

Paul Hastings

Devlin Law Firm

Russ August & Kabat

Parker Bunt & Ainsworth

Bayard

Cotman IP Law Group

Finnegan Henderson…

Direction IP Law

Ferraiuoli LLC

DiNovo Price Ellwanger &…

Farnan

Corcoran IP Law

Scheef & Stone

Olavi & Dunne

McCarter & English

Brandt Law Firm

Capshaw DeRieux

Morris Nichols Arsht &…

Ni Wang & Massand

Kizzia & Johnson

Stamoulis & Weinblatt

Spangler Law

Tadlock Law Firm

Austin Hansley PLLC


46

46

47

47

48

50

50

53

54

55

55

58

58

63

66

67

71

72

73

78

78

96

106

123

159

Ashby & Geddes

Wilmer Cutler Pickering…

Nelson Bumgardner

McCarter & English

Hayes Messina Gilman &…

Foley & Lardner

McDermott Will & Emery

Paul Hastings

Albritton Law Firm

Niro Haller & Niro

Dechert

Latham & Watkins

Susman Godfrey


Bayard

Cooley

Russ August & Kabat

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &…


McKool Smith

Capshaw DeRieux

Fish & Richardson

Farnan

Perkins Coie

Ward Smith & Hill

NUMBER OF LITIGATION MILESTONES



TOP PATENTEE LAWYERS In District Court Cases in 2015

66

67

68

70

72

72

74

74

75

87

87

88

95

96

98

99

100

101

102

117

119

119

119

127

128

135

136

137

137

145

158

158

175

223

242

273

423

423

Krystal L. Gibbens

Maryellen Noreika

Dorian S. Berger

Daniel L. Schmid

Daniel C. Cotman

Daniel P. Hipskind

Rasheed M. McWilliams

Michael J. Farnan

Andrew G. DiNovo

David B. Dyer

David R. Bennett

Eugenio J. Torres-Oyola

D. Jeffrey Rambin

Brian J. Dunne

Brian E. Farnan

Peter J. Corcoran, III

Jaspal S. Hare

Bryan R. Haynes

Matt Olavi

Timothy Wang

Stevenson Moore V

Anthony Ricciardelli

D. Bradley Kizzia

Neal G. Massand

Jack B. Blumenfeld

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

Benton Patterson

Hao Ni

Todd Y. Brandt

Jay B. Johnson

Richard C. Weinblatt

Stamatios Stamoulis

Andrew W. Spangler

John J. Harvey, Jr.

Keith Smiley

Craig Tadlock

Brandon M. LaPray

Austin Hansley


37

37

37

37

37

37

38

38

38

38

39

39

39

39

40

40

43

44

44

44

45

45

47

48

52

53

56

59

66

68

69

72

76

78

90

106

120

142

Bindu A. Palapura

Blake B. Greene

Courtland Reichman

Richard C. Weinblatt

Terrence P. McMahon

Timothy J. Devlin

Dean G. Bostock

Matthew D. Powers

Paul J. Cronin

Stephen E. Edwards

Christopher D. Banys

Jennifer Lu Gilbert

Kevin Gannon

Richard C. Lin

Andrew C. Mayo

Stamatios Stamoulis

Michael James Ercolini

James C. Hall

Samiyah Diaz

Thomas R. Fulford

James J. Foster

Steven E. Lipman

Paul J. Hayes

Martin J. Black

Eric M. Albritton

Jack B. Blumenfeld

Vanessa R. Tiradentes

Richard D. Kirk

Stephen B. Brauerman

S. Calvin Capshaw

Marc A. Fenster

D. Jeffrey Rambin

Michael J. Farnan

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

Claire Abernathy Henry

Brian E. Farnan

J. Wesley Hill

T. John Ward, Jr.




TOP ACCUSED INFRINGERS FIRMS In District Court Cases in 2015

37

37

37

38

40

40

41

42

45

46

47

48

48

49

49

50

50

52

62

65

72

75

97

136

172

278

Yarbrough Wilcox

Kilpatrick Townsend &…

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw…

Young Conaway Stargatt…


Greenberg Traurig

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &…

Siebman Burg Phillips &…

Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Wilson Robertson &…

Duane Morris

The Dacus Firm

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &…

Haltom and Doan

Alston & Bird

Baker Botts

Potter Anderson & Corroon

Cooley

Perkins Coie

Winston & Strawn

Findlay & Craft

DLA Piper


Potter Minton

Gillam & Smith

Fish & Richardson


76

76

79

86

88

89

92

93

94

96

97

97

97

98

99

105

107

114

124

131

144

146

148

161

167

180

185

Morrison & Foerster

K&L Gates

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich…

Weil Gotshal & Manges

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Findlay & Craft

Foley & Lardner

Paul Hastings

Kilpatrick Townsend &…

Sidley Austin

Cooley

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe

Kirkland & Ellis

Jones Day

McDermott Will & Emery

Potter Anderson & Corroon

DLA Piper

Latham & Watkins

Wilmer Cutler Pickering…

Winston & Strawn

Perkins Coie

Baker Botts

Potter Minton

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart…

Gillam & Smith


Fish & Richardson


To view average times to milestones like claim construction or trial for specific courts or judges, click the “TIME TO MILESTONES” tab on the main Docket Navigator search page.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/



TOP ACCUSED INFRINGERS LAWYERS In District Court Cases in 2015

19

19

19

20

22

23

24

24

26

27

27

28

31

33

33

33

33

36

36

37

41

42

44

44

48

65

67

70

101

105

146

202

Stephen J Kraftschik

Liza M Walsh

William J O'Brien

Karen A Confoy

Anthony V Nguyen

Jennifer Ying

Brent Douglas McCabe

Elizabeth L DeRieux

Bindu A Palapura

Dallas William Tharpe

John C Phillips, Jr.

Kent E. Baldauf, Jr.

Michael C. Smith

John M. Guaragna

Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

J. Thad Heartfield

Michael A. Bittner

David E. Moore

Trey Yarbrough

Jennifer H. Doan

R. Brian Craft

David B. Conrad

Jennifer P Ainsworth

Jack B. Blumenfeld

Deron R. Dacus

Wasif H. Qureshi

Allen F. Gardner

Eric H. Findlay

Ricardo J. Bonilla

Michael Edwin Jones

Melissa Richards Smith

Neil J McNabnay


38

38

38

38

39

39

39

39

39

39

40

40

41

41

42

43

44

44

45

46

49

49

53

56

56

61

63

71

81

109

123

135

144

Terrence P. McMahon

John W. Shaw

Jennifer J. Rho

J. Mark Mann

David A. Nelson

Dabney J. Carr, IV

William F. Lee

R. Brian Craft

J. Thad Heartfield

Edward R. Reines

I. Neel Chatterjee

Charles K. Verhoeven

Patrick Colbert Clutter, IV

Eric M. Albritton

Yar R. Chaikovsky

Jennifer H. Doan

Shawn A Latchford

Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

Debby E. Gunter

Jeffrey G. Homrig

Ramsey M. Al-Salam

Deron R. Dacus

Eric H. Findlay

Jennifer P. Ainsworth

John F. Bufe

Bindu A. Palapura

Trey Yarbrough

Richard L. Horwitz

David E. Moore

Allen F. Gardner

Jack B. Blumenfeld

Michael Edwin Jones

Melissa Richards Smith




TOP PATENT CLASSIFICATIONS By Number of Determinations 2008-2015

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

Plants

Agriculture, Food, Textiles

Nuclear & X-rays

Heating

Pipes & Joints

Metal Working

Semiconductor Devices

Gas Chemical

Motors & Engines & Parts

Amusement Devices

Earth Working & Wells

Resins

Coating Chemical

Electrical Lighting

Biotechnology

Agriculture, Husbandry, Food

Apparel & Textile

Electrical Devices

Measuring & Testing

Information Storage

Transportation

Power Systems

Furniture, House Fixtures

Receptacles

Materials Processing & Handling

Surgery & Medical Instruments

Organic Compounds

Design

Computer Peripherials

Drugs

Communications

Computer Hardware & Software

Optics

InfringedNot invalidNot unenforceableNot infringedUnenforceableInvalid

You can find a list of cases involving a specific class of patents with a CASES SEARCH, FILTERED BY PATENT CLASSIFICATION.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/05b3335a-428b-3696-3dfe-68b9643f75d3



TOP COURTS By New Cases, New Litigants, and New Accusations The volume of litigation activity is often expressed in terms of number of cases. But cases are not equal in size or complexity. This is particularly true since the enactment of the AIA joinder rules, which prompted many plaintiffs to file multiple cases where they previously would have filed one. In addition, failure to account for case relationships (transfers of venue, consolidations, etc.) can further skew the results. (See “Related Cases” on page 54.)

In addition to the number of cases, we measure the number of litigants involved in those new cases. In this way, cases involving multiple defendants are given greater weight that cases involving a single defendant. We also measure the number of accusations asserted in those cases, so cases involving multiple patents are given more weight than cases involving a single patent. (See “Patent Accusations” on page 53.) The result is a more granular measure of litigation activity.

Looking at 2015, 44.2% of all new patent cases were filed in the EDTX. But those cases involved only 27.9% of the litigants in new cases. Further, the new EDTX cases involved only 19.4% of all new accusations, whereas new DED cases involved of 22.5%.

TXED 44.2%

TXED 27.9%

TXED 19.4%

DED 9.4%

DED 17.7%

DED 22.5%

CACD 4.8%

CACD 7.1%CACD 8.8%

NJD 4.7%

NJD 6.6% NJD 9.6%

CAND 3.9%CAND 5.3% CAND 4.8%

ILND 2.8%ILND 2.5% ILND 2.5%

NYSD 2.6%NYSD 2.4% NYSD 3.3%

FLSD 2.2%FLSD 2.2% FLSD 1.8%

Others 25.4% Others 28.4% Others 27.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5,762 CASES 17,099 PARTIES 27,908 ACCUSATIONS



AVERAGE TIME TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION By Court 2008-2015 This chart shows the average number of days from case filing to claim construction by US district courts with at least 15 claim construction orders filed between 2008 and 2015. The national average for all patent litigation cases over the same period was just under two years, 720 days. Eighteen courts beat the national average, with Virginia Eastern and Wisconsin Western Districts occupying the top two positions.

1,246

1,219

1,021

982

950

915

892

891

874

864

839

830

828

822

817

812

807

790

785

784

783

775

734

709

707

694

692

689

668

668

664

658

650

635

626

624

606

572

518

440

391

Connecticut District

Pennsylvania Middle District

Court of Federal Claims

Ohio Southern District

New York Eastern District

Utah District

Nevada District

Illinois Northern District

Michigan Eastern District

New Jersey District

Indiana Southern District

Ohio Northern District

Colorado District

Wisconsin Eastern District

Nebraska District

Georgia Northern District

New York Northern District

Texas Southern District

Michigan Western District

Delaware District

Maryland District

Minnesota District

New York Southern District

North Carolina Western District

Texas Western District

Pennsylvania Eastern District

Florida Middle District

Massachusetts District

Arizona District

Pennsylvania Western District

Texas Eastern District

California Northern District

Oregon District

Texas Northern District

California Southern District

California Central District

Washington Western District

Missouri Eastern District

Florida Southern District

Wisconsin Western District

Virginia Eastern District



AVERAGE TIME TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT By Court 2008-2015 This chart shows the average number of days from case filing to a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) in US District Courts for orders which occurred between 2008 and 2015. The chart labeled “MSJ in favor of patentee” shows times for motions, which if granted, would favor the patentee. Conversely, the chart labeled “MSJ against patentee” shows times for motions, which if granted, would favor an accused infringer or patent challenger. Only districts with at least 15 orders between 2008 and 2015 are shown.

1,897

1,535

1,409

1,340

1,336

1,316

1,310

1,254

1,247

1,196

1,160

1,143

1,083

1,057

1,036

1,027

1,007

995

988

948

926

912

908

888

857

808

802

800

483

483

453

New York Eastern

Michigan Eastern

Oregon

New York Northern

Utah

Washington Western

Georgia Northern

Ohio Northern

Illinois Northern

Illinois Central

Nevada

New Jersey

Massachusetts

Delaware

Nebraska

Minnesota

Pennsylvania Western

Wisconsin Eastern

New York Southern

Texas Southern

California Northern

Colorado

California Southern

Maryland

Texas Eastern

California Central

Missouri Eastern

Florida Middle

Wisconsin Western

Virginia Eastern

Florida Southern

MSJ IN FAVOR OF PATENTEE

1,5511,4821,4181,3811,3501,3471,3131,3041,2831,2711,2611,2461,2311,2061,1751,1371,1231,1081,0901,0821,0521,0271,0231,0131,002986980967965916915904903899889859839831807804758683650490397

ConnecticutNew York Eastern

DCCt. Federal Claims

NY NorthernOregon

Ohio NorthernMichigan Eastern

Ohio SouthernIndiana Southern

NevadaUtah

Georgia NorthernPenn. Middle

ArizonaDelaware

Illinois CentralMissouri Eastern

New York SouthernNew Jersey

Oklahoma WesternCalifornia Eastern

Illinois NorthernMaryland

MassachusettsPenn. Eastern

Wisconsin EasternMichigan Western

Penn. WesternMinnesota

N.C. WesternNebraska

Texas SouthernTexas WesternTexas Northern

ColoradoCalifornia Northern

California CentralCalifornia Southern

Texas EasternFlorida Middle

Wash. WesternFlorida Southern

Wisconsin WesternVirginia Eastern

MSJ AGAINST PATENTEE



AVERAGE TIME TO TRIAL By Court 2008-2015 This chart shows the average number of days from case filing to a trial event in US District Courts with at least 10 occurrences between 2008 and 2015. The national average for all patent litigation cases over the same period was 1,203 days.

1,973

1,828

1,614

1,426

1,290

1,277

1,238

1,200

1,178

1,166

1,124

1,095

998

977

954

917

889

719

514

Illinois Northern District

Colorado District

Nevada District

Massachusetts District

New York Southern District

California Northern District

Arizona District

California Southern District

New Jersey District

Delaware District

Pennsylvania Western District

California Central District

Washington Western District

Texas Eastern District

Texas Northern District

Florida Southern District

Florida Middle District

Wisconsin Western District

Virginia Eastern District

You can find all Verdicts issued since 2008 with a DOCUMENTS SEARCH. Want to add bench rulings? Click the pencil icon next to the “type of court document” in the Search Criteria, then click “FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW”.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/10c75894-4599-6a5d-c50d-eac1b7115ae5

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/f3f255d3-8631-a887-9dca-cfbfaf27aa4a



TOP JUDGES By New Cases, New Litigants, and New Accusations This chart shows a comparison of the top judges by number of new patent litigation cases filed in 2015, the number of litigants in those new cases, and the number of accusations in those cases. The total number of new district court cases increased, as did the number of cases assigned to the top eight judges. The top eight judges presided over 63.9% of all new cases in 2015; almost the same group of eight presided over 52% in 2014. Judge Rodney Gilstrap continues to carry the lion’s share (24.6%) of patent litigation with a total of 1,686 cases filed in 2015. Although the top eight judges were assigned 63.9% of all new cases in 2015, those cases involved only 42.1% of the litigants in all new district court cases and only 36.3% of the accusations in those cases. (See page 53 for information on how accusations are calculated.)

Rodney Gilstrap 24.6%Rodney Gilstrap 16.6%

Rodney Gilstrap 11.8%

Roy S. Payne 15.6%

Roy S. Payne 10.4%

Roy S. Payne 7.1%

Robert W. Schroeder, III 12.2%



John D. Love 3.5%

John D. Love 2.2%

John D. Love 2.4%

Richard G. Andrews 2.7%



Gregory M. Sleet 1.9%



Leonard P. Stark 1.8%



Sue L. Robinson 1.6%



Others 36.1%

Others 57.9%

Others 63.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6,846 CASES 33,027 LITIGANTS 46,541 ACCUSATIONS



AVERAGE TIME TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION By Judge The chart below shows the average number of days from case filing to claim construction for judges with at least 20 claim construction orders filed between 2008 and 2015. The national average for all patent litigation cases over the same period was just under two years, 720 days.

1,021984

896884

853791767

765754

738728720

706701

691688686

680678

664661659

654612

606606605

589578

571554541

521517

505491479

437434

412405

Peter G. SheridanMary L. CooperJeffrey S. White

Sue L. RobinsonMary Pat ThyngeRonald M. WhyteLeonard P. Stark

Lee YeakelF. Dennis Saylor, IVRichard G. Andrews

Gregory M. SleetPaul S. Grewal

Ann D. MontgomeryJoel A. PisanoLeonard Davis

Caroline CravenMichael H. Schneider

Cathy Ann BencivengoRodney Gilstrap

Keith F. GiblinSam Sparks

Susan IllstonColleen McMahon

Barbara M. G. LynnDean D. Pregerson

James V. SelnaRoy S. PayneJohn D. LoveJon S. Tigar

R. Gary KlausnerMarilyn L. Huff

Andrew J. GuilfordMariana R. Pfaelzer

Lucy H. KohRon Clark

John A. KronstadtWilliam M. ConleyDana M. SabrawOtis D. Wright, IIWilliam H. Alsup

Barbara B. Crabb



AVERAGE TIME TO MOTION For Summary Judgment by Judge The charts below show the average number of days from case filing to a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) ruling by district court judges which occurred between 2008 and 2015. The chart labeled “MSJ in favor of patentee” shows times for motions, which if granted, would favor the patentee. Conversely, the chart labeled “MSJ against patentee” shows times for motions, which if granted, would favor an accused infringer or patent challenger.

For MSJ against patentee, only judges with at least 20 total MSJ orders between 2008 and 2015 were considered. Since there were far fewer MSJ orders in favor overall, for those orders the minimum threshold was lowered to 10 total MSJ orders.

The national average for all patent litigation cases over the same period was roughly comparable, at 1,013 and 945 days respectively.

1,648

1,549

1,472

1,182

1,158

1,139

1,115

1,086

1,065

1,062

1,057

979

970

930

924

835

823

814

784

736

677

631

596

535

524

487

450

345

Benjamin H. Settle

F. Dennis Saylor, IV

Mary L. Cooper

James F. Holderman

Leonard P. Stark

Mary S. Scriven

Susan Illston

Joan N. Ericksen

Stanley R. Chesler

Richard G. Andrews

Robert W. Schroeder, III

Rodney Gilstrap

William C. Griesbach

Leonard Davis

Sue L. Robinson

Dana M. Sabraw

Marilyn L. Huff

R. Gary Klausner

Cormac J. Carney

James V. Selna

Mariana R. Pfaelzer

John D. Love

Andrew J. Guilford

William M. Conley

Philip S. Gutierrez

Leonie M. Brinkema

Barbara B. Crabb

William G. Young

MSJ IN FAVOR OF PATENTEE

1,5671,3191,2661,2381,0801,0421,006975956895864864840825824808762751744703698674673666653631624600545514511506469464339314289

Mary Pat Thynge

Richard G. Stearns

Virginia M. Kendall

Leonard P. Stark

R. Gary Klausner

Richard G. Andrews

Rodney Gilstrap

Ronald M. Whyte

Sue L. Robinson

Andrew J. Guilford

Claudia Wilken

George H. Wu

Susan Illston

Roy S. Payne

Richard Seeborg

Paul S. Grewal

Leonard Davis

William C. Griesbach

Dana M. Sabraw

Cormac J. Carney

Michael H. Schneider

Mariana R. Pfaelzer

William H. Alsup

John D. Love

Lucy H. Koh

Ron Clark

Marilyn L. Huff

William G. Young

James V. Selna

William M. Conley

Otis D. Wright, II

Katherine B. Forrest

Leonie M. Brinkema

Barbara B. Crabb

Jed S. Rakoff

Richard A. Posner

Gerald Bruce Lee

MSJ AGAINST PATENTEE



AVERAGE TIME TO TRIAL By Judge The chart below shows the average number of days from case filing to a trial event before District Court judges with at least six occurrences between 2008 and 2015. The national average for all patent litigation cases over the same period was 1,203 days.

2,368

1,837

1,537

1,433

1,270

1,154

1,126

1,055

1,055

1,033

1,031

999

999

992

965

954

922

920

781

777

729

709

693

673

505

382

Ronald M. Whyte

John A. Houston

Leonard P. Stark

Jose L. Linares

Roy S. Payne

Sue L. Robinson

Dana M. Sabraw

Marilyn L. Huff

William H. Alsup

Ricardo S. Martinez

Richard G. Andrews

Paul S. Grewal

Joel A. Pisano

Rodney Gilstrap

Gregory M. Sleet

Peter G. Sheridan

Leonard Davis

James V. Selna

Barbara B. Crabb

Lucy H. Koh

John D. Love

Ron Clark

William M. Conley

Michael H. Schneider

Jed S. Rakoff

Manuel L. Real

You can view a JUDGE’S LITIGATION HISTORY in patent cases with a Judges search. Just click Judges on our SEARCH PAGE, type in the last name and click the judge’s full name in the drop-down suggestions. Be sure to click the tabs across the top of the page to reveal more information.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/detail/summary/judge/1078

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/



COMPARISON OF JURY TRIAL, BENCH TRIAL AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION OUTCOMES 2008-2015 These charts show how patent determinations differ based on the jurisdiction and type of proceeding. It is designed to help answer questions like: “Am I more likely to succeed with a jury or in a bench trial?” or “Are juries in Delaware more likely to favor patent owners than juries in New Jersey?”

The line labeled “verdict” represents determinations rendered in jury verdicts. The line labeled “FFCL” represents determinations rendered in FRCP 52 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law following bench trials. The line labeled “MSJ” represents determinations rendered in orders on summary judgment motions. The line labeled “Other” represents determinations rendered in all other types of court documents.

ALL US DISTRICT COURTS

Across all US district courts, over 70% of all bench trial determinations favored patentees. Jury trial determinations also favored patentees, but to a lesser degree. On the other hand, 67.5% of summary judgment determinations favor accused patent infringers or patent challengers.

Infringed Not Invalid Not Unenforceable Not Infringed Unenforceable Invalid However, a closer look at the top courts shows even more variation. (next page)

1,330

364

166

519

1,470

640

236

602

607

228

168

35

1,052

1,666

90

398

81

42

52

9

1,021

854

93

183

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

Each colored line represents the determinations rendered in a specific type of proceeding: jury trial, bench trial, summary judgment, or other. Colors correspond to the type of determination. Blue shades represent determinations that favor patentees.

HOW TO READ THESE CHARTS

DETERMINATIONS THAT FAVOR ACCUSED INFRINGERS

DETERMINATIONS THAT FAVOR PATENTEES



COMPARISON OF JURY TRIAL, BENCH TRIAL AND DISPOSITIVE MOTION OUTCOMES Continued

Infringed Not Invalid Not Unenforceable Not Infringed Unenforceable Invalid

144

19

49

78

189

63

77

99

47

16

38

4

193

169

33

72

15

13

174

94

30

36

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

DELAWARE DISTRICT

110

43

3

12

106

91

2

17

36

43

5

4

105

246

11

11

7

10

2

122

153

7

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL DISTRICT

169

21

15

141

277

120

16

154

63

7

37

1

153

105

5

98

3

4

134

69

50

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

TEXAS EASTERN DISTRICT

32

6

22

6

31

25

20

6

16

6

10

1

54

70

5

2

8

3

5

69

55

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT

74

38

29

2

67

19

35

4

22

3

11

1

29

27

10

4

5

1

2

2

38

14

17

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

NEW JERSEY DISTRICT

34

27

51

65

26

10

69

13

9

2

1

104

191

69

1

2

3

2

100

100

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT

32

11

1

22

54

20

2

19

14

18

3

1

56

60

1

15

13

2

6

31

19

5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

Verdict

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DISTRICT

23

11

4

27

14

4

6

16

4

24

64

6

11

4

24

34

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

MSJ

FFCL

ILLINOIS NORTHERN DISTRICT



OUTCOMES OF 35 U.S.C. § 101 CHALLENGES These charts show the outcomes of judicial decisions on challenges to patent validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), through the end of 2015. During that time, U.S. district courts addressed 191 Section 101 patent challenges, 67% of which were resolved favorable or partially favorable to the patent challengers. But, importantly, the results vary significantly by district. In EDTX, only 35% of challenges were resolved favorable or partially favorable to the patent challengers. Conversely, DED resolved 88% of § 101 challenges in favor or partially in favor of the patent challenger.

Also interesting, the timing of the motion in relation to the stage of litigation does not appear to affect the outcomes. Within a specific court, the grant rate for challenges brought in the early stages of litigation is very close to the grant rate for challenges brought at a mature stage.

8

13

13

23

109

1

1

3

7

20

17

6

6

4

64

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TXED

CACD

CAND

DED

National

All § 101 Challenges

3

1

3

8

28

1

1

5

11

6

2

1

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TXED

CACD

CAND

DED

National

§ 101 Challenges Asserted in Early Stage

5

12

10

15

81

1

2

2

9

11

4

6

3

46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

TXED

CACD

CAND

DED

National

§ 101 Challenges Asserted in Mature Stage

Favorable to Patent Challenger Partially Favorable to Patent Challenger Favorable to Patentee



MOTION SUCCESS RATES 2012-2015 This chart shows the success rates of more than 40 types of motions from 2012 to 2015. Excluding single-year variances, the national success rate for most types of motions remained relatively stable over the four-year period. This might suggest that, despite significant changes in the legal landscape, the daily administration of patent disputes in US district courts remains relatively unchanged. A few notable exceptions include:

o Motions for summary judgment of patent invalidity: In 2012 and 2013, the success rate of summary judgment motions challenging the validity was around 30% each year. But in 2014 and 2015, the success rate jumped to more than 40%, likely reflecting the impact of challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).

o Motions for summary judgment of no willful infringement: Success rates skyrocketed from less than 10% in 2011 to more than 70% in 2014, likely due to the heightened standard under Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore and Assocs., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc) and 35 U.S.C. § 298. In 2015, however, the success rate fell to just over 51%.

o Motions to limit the number of claims or prior art: Success rates increased from about 50% in 2011 to more than 80% in 2015.

44.4%

100.0%

72.4%

68.0%

69.5%

54.5%

43.3%

34.7%

55.6%

46.7%

52.8%

57.7%

29.4%

33.3%

76.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Motion to Bifurcate

Motion to Stay Pending Investigation by ITC

Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review

Motion to Stay Pending CBM Review

Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Motion to Dismiss -- Failure to State a Claim

Motion to Dismiss -- Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Motion to Dismiss -- Lack of Subject Matter

Motion to Dismiss -- Lack of Standing

Motion to Transfer Venue -- Convenience

Motion re First-to-File Rule

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Motion to Amend or Supplement Pleading

2015201420132012



MOTION SUCCESS RATES Continued

56.3%

58.3%

31.6%

50.0%

92.9%

17.9%

34.4%

20.7%

13.9%

11.8%

25.7%

50.0%

38.6%

40.0%

51.6%

51.3%

48.9%

31.3%

56.4%

40.9%

56.9%

35.6%

80.7%

52.9%

46.7%

51.1%

22.0%

37.0%

64.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Motion for Contempt (Permanent Injunction)

Motion for Enhanced Damages

Motion for Attorney Fees

Motion for Ongoing Royalty

Motion for Permanent Injunction

Motion for New Trial

Motion for Sanctions -- Court's Inherent Power

Motion for Sanctions (28 USC § 1927)

Motion for Sanctions (FRCP 11)

Motion for Interlocutory Appeal

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

MSJ -- Claim Not Barred by SOL, Laches, Estoppel

MSJ -- Claim Barred by SOL, Laches, Estoppel

MSJ -- Claim Barred by Prior Agreement

MSJ -- Damages

MSJ -- No Willful Infringement

MSJ -- Not Unenforceable

MSJ -- Unenforceability

MSJ -- No Invalidity

MSJ -- Invalidity

MSJ -- Noninfringement

MSJ -- Infringement

Motion to Limit Number of Claims/Prior Art

Motion in Limine -- Fact Witness/Evidence/Exhibit

Motion in Limine -- Expert Testimony

Motion to Strike Expert Reports

Motion for Discovery Sanctions -- Issue/Evidence

Motion for Discovery Sanctions -- Monetary

Motion to Compel Discovery

2015

2014

2013

2012



DISTRICT COURT PATENT DETERMINATIONS 2008-2015 (Percentage) This chart shows the percentage of each type of patent determination based on the total number of determinations of all types for that year. 2015 saw a significant increase in the percentage of determinations of invalidity, nearly doubling the previous year’s number. In contrast, the percentage of infringement determinations in 2015 fell to 14.4%, the lowest level in at least eight years.

23.7% 23.8% 22.4% 23.8% 22.1%15.6%

22.6%

14.4%

22.3%18.6% 20.9%

25.9%23.4%

25.4%

28.7%

30.1%

9.8%

9.1% 7.2%

10.67%

10.1%

4.7%

10.5%

4.6%

25.7%

26.1% 30.0%

25.4%

26.7%

36.4%

22.4%

23.0%

3.3%

2.9%1.6%

0.5%

1.8% 1.5% 1.0%

0.8%

15.2%19.6% 17.9%

13.8% 15.9% 16.5% 14.9%

27.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Infringed Not invalid Not unenforceable Not infringed Unenforceable Invalid

2014 14.9% 2015 27.1%

2014 22.6% 2015 14.4%

2014 11.5% 2015 5.4%

INVALID INFRINGED ENFORCEABILITY (COMBINED)



NEW PTAB PETITIONS 2012-2015 The chart below shows the number of new IPR, CBM, and PGR petitions filed in the Patent & Trademark Appeals Board (PTAB) by month.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Sep2012

Nov2012

Jan2013

Mar2013

May2013

Jul2013

Sep2013

Nov2013

Jan2014

Mar2014

May2014

Jul2014

Sep2014

Nov2014

Jan2015

Mar2015

May2015

Jul2015

Sep2015

Nov2015

Inter Partes Review

Post Grant Review

Covered Business Method

Want to be notified whenever a new PTAB petition is filed?

Just click “Create Alert” at the bottom of this LIST OF PTAB CASES.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/4a88e90e-4f76-8a23-c269-92ba397ca73a



NEW PTAB PETITIONS BY TECH CODE 2012-2015 This chart shows the number of IPR, CBM and PGR petitions by Tech Code that were filed in the PTAB each month. Each Tech Code is represented by a different colored band.

*Tech Code 2700 (Communications and information systems) has been split into Tech Codes: 2100 (Computer Architecture and Software) and 2600 (Communications). For purposes of this chart, Tech Code 2700 includes all three.

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Sep2012

Nov2012

Jan2013

Mar2013

May2013

Jul2013

Sep2013

Nov2013

Jan2014

Mar2014

May2014

Jul2014

Sep2014

Nov2014

Jan2015

Mar2015

May2015

Jul2015

Sep2015

Nov2015

2700 Communications & Software*

2800 Semiconductors et al

3600 Transportation et al

3700 Mechanical et al

2400 Networking et al

1600 Biotech et al

1700 Chemical et al

other



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — BY MONTH This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims challenged in an IPR, CBM, or PGR petition. Bars above the midline show the number of claims in which review was granted on at least one ground, bars below the midline show the number of claims in which review was denied on all grounds. Net Grants/Denials. The Net Grants/Denials line shows the net number of claims for which institution was granted minus the number denied. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears above the midline, it means more claims were granted institution of review than denied institution that month. When it appears below the midline it means more claims were denied institution than granted that month.

3 20 35 13 85 43 51 71 134

51 17 148

131

151

284

241

192

476

628

445

388

626

467

361

822

646

511

615

693

632

674

903

629

686

520

522

970

6

77

230

366

161

556

230

395

327

430

402

483

763

497

693

1,05

7

743

986

580

609

797

1,13

6

1,10

2

587

1,24

8

907

1,44

8

1,18

4

870

833

968

1,07

1

887

943

1,16

8

1,18

5

1,04

8

1,000

500

0

500

1,000

1,500

Dec2012

Feb2013

Apr2013

Jun2013

Aug2013

Oct2013

Dec2013

Feb2014

Apr2014

Jun2014

Aug2014

Oct2014

Dec2014

Feb2015

Apr2015

Jun2015

Aug2015

Oct2015

Dec2015

Claims Denied Institution

Claims Granted Institution

Net Claims Granted/Denied



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — CUMULATIVE This chart is the same as the chart on the previous page, but adds a new line. Cumulative Claims Granted/Denied. The Cumulative Claims Granted/Denied line shows the cumulative number of net claims granted or denied institution each month. If the same number of claims were granted and denied institution over time, the Cumulative Claims Granted/Denied line would be horizontal. When the line rises, it indicates a trend toward granting institution. When the line falls, it indicates a trend toward denying institution.

SUCCESS RATES OF ALL PTAB CLAIMS SINCE THE AIA WAS ENACTED

1,000

1,000

3,000

5,000

7,000

9,000

11,000

13,000

Dec2012

Feb2013

Apr2013

Jun2013

Aug2013

Oct2013

Dec2013

Feb2014

Apr2014

Jun2014

Aug2014

Oct2014

Dec2014

Feb2015

Apr2015

Jun2015

Aug2015

Oct2015

Dec2015




Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied

66%



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — TOTAL This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims, by ground, challenged in an IPR, CBM, or PGR petition based on the asserted statutory ground for unpatentability from the time the PTAB came into existence through the end of 2015.

Obviousness (§103)41,256 63%

Anticipation (§102)18,013 28%

Unpatentable Subject Matter

(§101)3,614 6%

Enablement, Indefiniteness,

Written Description (§ 112)2,022 3%

Granted, 23,827

Denied, 17,429

Granted, 9,371

Denied, 8,642

Denied, 1,124

Denied, 1,635



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — § 101 For Claims Challenged on Unpatentable Subject Matter Grounds (35 U.S.C. § 101) This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims challenged in a PTAB petition on the ground of lack of patentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 101). Bars above the midline show the number of claims in which review was granted, bars below the midline show the number of claims in which review was denied. Net Grants/Denials. The Net Grants/Denials line shows the net number of claims for which institution was granted minus the number of claims denied. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears above the midline, it means more claims were granted institution of review than denied that month. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears below the midline, it means more claims were denied institution than granted that month. Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied. The Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied line shows the cumulative number of Net Grants/Denials. When the line rises, it indicates a trend toward granting institution; when the line falls, it indicates a trend toward denying institution. When the line is flat, it indicates the same number of claims are granted and denied institution of review.

SUCCESS RATE OF CLAIMS CHALLENGED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 SINCE THE AIA WAS ENACTED

250

50

150

350

550

750

950

1150

1350

1550

1750

Jan2013

Mar2013

May2013

Jul2013

Sep2013

Nov2013

Jan2014

Mar2014

May2014

Jul2014

Sep2014

Nov2014

Jan2015

Mar2015

May2015

Jul2015

Sep2015

Nov2015

Claims Granted InstitutionClaims Denied InstitutionNet Claims Granted/DeniedCumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied

68.9%



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — § 102 For Claims Challenged on Anticipation Grounds (35 U.S.C. § 102) This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims challenged in a PTAB petition on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) grounds. Bars above the midline show the number of claims in which review was granted, bars below the midline show the number of claims in which review was denied. Net Grants/Denials. The Net Grants/Denials line shows the net number of claims for which institution was granted minus the number of claims denied. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears above the midline, it means more claims were granted institution of review than denied that month. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears below the midline, it means more claims were denied institution than granted that month. Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied. The Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied line shows the cumulative number of Net Grants/Denials. When the line rises, it indicates a trend toward granting institution; when the line falls, it indicates a trend toward denying institution. When the line is flat, it indicates the same number of claims are granted and denied institution of review.


600

400

200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Dec2012

Feb2013

Apr2013

Jun2013

Aug2013

Oct2013

Dec2013

Feb2014

Apr2014

Jun2014

Aug2014

Oct2014

Dec2014

Feb2015

Apr2015

Jun2015

Aug2015

Oct2015

Dec2015




Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied

52%



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — § 103 For Claims Asserts on Obviousness Grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims challenged in a PTAB petition on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) grounds. Bars above the midline show the number of claims in which review was granted, bars below the midline show the number of claims in which review was denied. Net Grants/Denials. The Net Grants/Denials line shows the net number of claims for which institution was granted minus the number of claims denied. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears above the midline, it means more claims were granted institution of review than denied that month. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears below the midline, it means more claims were denied institution than granted that month. Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied. The Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied line shows the cumulative number of Net Grants/Denials. When the line rises, it indicates a trend toward granting institution; when the line falls, it indicates a trend toward denying institution. When the line is flat, it indicates the same number of claims are granted and denied institution of review.


1,500

500

500

1,500

2,500

3,500

4,500

5,500

6,500

Dec2012

Feb2013

Apr2013

Jun2013

Aug2013

Oct2013

Dec2013

Feb2014

Apr2014

Jun2014

Aug2014

Oct2014

Dec2014

Feb2015

Apr2015

Jun2015

Aug2015

Oct2015

Dec2015

Claims Granted InstitutionClaims Denied InstitutionNet Claims Granted/DeniedCumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied

57.8%



INSTITUTION OUTCOMES — § 112 For Claims Challenged on 35 U.S.C. § 112 Grounds This chart shows the outcomes of institution decisions for individual patent claims challenged in a PTAB petition on 35 U.S.C. § 112 grounds. Bars above the midline show the number of claims in which review was granted, bars below the midline show the number of claims in which review was denied. Net Grants/Denials. The Net Grants/Denials line shows the net number of claims for which institution was granted minus the number of claims denied. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears above the midline, it means more claims were granted institution of review than denied that month. When the Net Grants/Denials line appears below the midline, it means more claims were denied institution than granted that month. Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied. The Cumulative Net Claims Granted/Denied line shows the cumulative number of Net Grants/Denials. When the line rises, it indicates a trend toward granting institution; when the line falls, it indicates a trend toward denying institution. When the line is flat, it indicates the same number of claims are granted and denied institution of review.


1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

200

Jan2013

Mar2013

May2013

Jul2013

Sep2013

Nov2013

Jan2014

Mar2014

May2014

Jul2014

Sep2014

Nov2014

Jan2015

Mar2015

May2015

Jul2015

Sep2015

Nov2015




Cumulative Net Claims Instituted

19.1%



PTAB PATENT DETERMINATIONS 2012-2015 This chart shows the number of patent determinations in Final Written Decisions over the past three years by the PTAB in IPR, CBM and PGR proceedings.

Not unpatentable172

20.3%

Amendment allowed3

0.4%

No patentability determination due to

indefiniteness6

0.7%

Unpatentable/Cancelled667

78.7%



PTAB PATENT DETERMINATIONS 2012-2015 by Month This chart shows the number of patent determinations by month over the past three years by the PTAB in IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings. Each color represents a different type of determination.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jun2013

Aug2013

Oct2013

Dec2013

Feb2014

Apr2014

Jun2014

Aug2014

Oct2014

Dec2014

Feb2015

Apr2015

Jun2015

Aug2015

Oct2015

Dec2015

Unpatentable/Cancelled

Not unpatentable

No patentability determination due to indefiniteness

Amendment allowed

You can view all patent determinations in IPR, CBM, and PGR proceedings with a DETERMINATIONS SEARCH.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/e7103277-6cdd-b208-c95e-52105e0d5991



TOP PTAB PETITIONERS The following is a list of petitioners that filed petitions for IPR, CBM or PGR Review in 2015. For the purpose of this chart, affiliates have been removed. (For example, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is on the list, but Lupin, Inc. is not.) This helps make the list a more accurate representation of PTAB proceedings, where there may be many parties-in-interest appearing on the same cases.

15

15

15

16

16

16

16

17

17

17

17

17

17

18

18

18

18

19

20

22

23

23

25

30

33

35

38

42

58

120

Ericsson, Inc.

Intel Corporation

Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

American Megatrends, Inc.

Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd.

MSI Computer Corp.

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Arista Networks, Inc.

Qualcomm Incorporated

TCL Corporation

TCT Mobile (US), Inc.

Unified Patents Inc.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Daimler North America Corporation

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

ServiceNow, Inc.

Toshiba Corporation

Ford Motor Company


TRW Automotive US LLC

Micron Technology, Inc.

Toyota Motor Corporation

Sony Corporation

IP Navigation Group, LLC

Hayman Capital Master Fund, LP

nXn Partners, LLC

LG Electronics, Inc.

Google Inc.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Apple Inc.

You can set up an alert on all new PTAB IPRs, CBMs, or PGRs by clicking “Create Alert” at the bottom of a CASES SEARCH RESULTS PAGE, filtered by PTAB as the court/agency.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/ba3918fb-42ea-d075-ed7d-95987b8ae322



TOP PATENT OWNERS IN PTAB PROCEEDINGS The following is a list of patent owners that had their patents challenged in petitions for IPR, CBM or PGR Review in 2015. For the purpose of this chart, affiliates have been removed. (For example, Intellectual Ventures II LLC is on the chart, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC is not.) This helps make the list a more accurate representation of PTAB proceedings, where there may be many parties-in-interest appearing on the same cases.

12

12

12

12

12

12

13

13

13

14

15

15

16

17

17

18

18

18

19

19

19

21

22

22

26

26

27

28

35

ZiiLABS Inc., Ltd.

Straight Path IP Group, Inc.

Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

Intellectual Ventures II LLC

Horizon Pharma, Inc.

Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC

Vivint, Inc.

Core Wireless Licensing SARL

Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

BASF Corporation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Longitude Licensing Ltd.

Kinglite Holdings Inc.

Smartflash LLC

Cisco Systems, Inc.

TracBeam, LLC

Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC

Global Touch Solutions, LLC

VirnetX Inc.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Golden Wave Partners Co., Ltd.

Signal IP, Inc.

Paice LLC

The Abell Foundation, Inc.

Magna Electronics, Inc.

Finjan, Inc.

Ericsson, Inc.

Acacia Research Group LLC

Innovative Display Technologies LLC

You can set up an alert on all new PTAB IPRs, CBMs, or PGRs by clicking “Create Alert” at the bottom of a CASES SEARCH RESULTS PAGE, filtered by PTAB as the court/agency.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/ba3918fb-42ea-d075-ed7d-95987b8ae322



TOP FIRMS IN THE PTAB The following is a list of the top law firms and corporate legal departments measured by the number of IPR, CBM and PGR proceedings in 2015 in which the organization represented one of the litigants.

35

35

36

36

40

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

53

55

57

61

61

62

70

70

71

92

104

152

160

166

Norton Rose Fulbright

Alston & Bird

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear

K&L Gates

Jones Day

Latham & Watkins

Sughrue Mion

Kirkland & Ellis

DLA Piper

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

Kenyon & Kenyon

Weil Gotshal & Manges

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey

Ropes & Gray

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Sidley Austin

Ascenda Law Group

Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt

Baker Botts

Perkins Coie

Cooley

Paul Hastings

Fish & Richardson

Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

You can view a LIST OF PTAB PROCEEDINGS with specific law firms representing the parties using a Cases search, filtered by a law firm name.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/ee3fb1bf-1e4e-1b79-296c-0cad1a7cbd78



TOP FIRMS IN THE PTAB Continued Haynes & Boone 34

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel 33

Covington & Burling 32

Mayer Brown 31

Morrison & Foerster 30

Goodwin Procter 29

Pepper Hamilton 29

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo 28

Proskauer Rose 27

Gardner Linn Burkhart & Flory 26

Bragalone Conroy 25

Lathrop & Gage 25

Brooks Kushman 24

Finjan Inc. 24

Venable 24

Duane Morris 23

Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik 23

Intellectual Ventures 23

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton 23

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 23

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 22

Bryan Cave 21

Dentons 21

Foley & Lardner 21

McAndrews Held & Malloy 21

SoCal IP Law Group 21

Heninger Garrison Davis 20

Stadheim & Grear 20

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks 20

Baker & Hostetler 19

Desmarais 19

Dovel & Luner 19

Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto 19

Greenberg Traurig 19

Hill Kertscher & Wharton 19

McDermott Will & Emery 19

Novak Druce Connolly Bove + Quigg 19

UNH School of Law 19

AZA Law Firm 18

Joao Control & Monitoring Systems 18

Law Offices of Gregory J. Gonsalves 18

Morgan Lewis & Bockius 18

O'Melveny & Myers 18

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 17

Irell & Manella 17

Nelson Bumgardner 17

Quarles & Brady 17

Williams & Connolly 17

DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy 16

Harness Dickey & Pierce 16

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 16

Martin & Ferraro 15

Neifeld IP Law 15

Robins Kaplan 15

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 14

Banner & Witcoff 14

Blank Rome 14

Crowell & Moring 14

Fenwick & West 14

McKool Smith 14

Unified Patents, Inc. 14

Arnold & Porter 13

Baker & McKenzie 13

Cravath Swaine & Moore 13

Dorsey & Whitney 13

Erise IP 13

Lee & Hayes 13

Skiermont Derby 13

Renaissance IP Law Group 13

Faegre Baker & Daniels 12

Locke Lord 12

Law Offices of Marc R. Labgold, PC 12

Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel 12

Steptoe & Johnson 12



TOP ATTORNEYS IN THE PTAB The following is a list of the top attorneys measured by the number of IPR, CBM or PGR proceedings in 2015 in which the attorney represented one of the litigants.

30

30

30

31

31

32

33

33

33

34

35

35

38

38

42

43

43

45

46

48

50

50

51

53

62

101

Dorothy P. Whelan

Brian K. Shelton

Andrea G. Reister

Ruffin B. Cordell

Michael R. Casey

Erika H. Arner

Jon E. Wright

James R. Hannah

David K. S. Cornwell

Scott A. McKeown

Heidi L. Keefe

Lori A. Gordon

William H. Mandir

Kevin E. Greene

Jason D. Eisenberg

Robert Steinberg

Joseph E. Palys

Jeffrey P. Kushan

Robert Greene Sterne

J Steven Baughman

Wayne M. Helge

Joshua L. Goldberg

W. Karl Renner

Holly J. Atkinson

Tarek N. Fahmi

Naveen Modi

You can view a LIST OF PTAB PROCEEDINGS WITH A SPECIFIC ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PARTIES using a Cases search, filtered by an attorney name.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/d33329f7-73f9-8a7f-f626-34b2f8c79bc6



TOP ATTORNEYS IN THE PTAB Continued

Bing Ai 29

Timothy W. Riffe 29

Jason E. Stach 28

David L. Cavanaugh 27

Brian J. Livedalen 26

W. Todd Baker 26

Jonathan R. K. Stroud 26

Timothy A. Flory 26

Terence J. Linn 26

Terry A. Saad 25

Michael Kim 24

T. William Kennedy 24

F. Dominic Cerrito 24

Jeffrey R. Bragalone 24

Jeffrey H. Price 24

Jay I. Alexander 24

Nicholas C. Kliewer 24

Justin B. Kimble 24

Lisa M. Mandrusiak 24

Eugene Goryunov 23

Alex Kuo 23

Tim R. Seeley 23

Brian W. Oaks 23

Allan J. Sternstein 22

Megan Freeland Raymond 22

Andrew W. Schultz 22

Andrew C. Mace 22

Frank C. Calvosa 22

Christopher T. L. Douglas 22

Timothy K. Sendek 22

Linda L. Kordziel 22

Rene A. Vazquez 22

Joseph A Micallef 21

A. Justin Poplin 21

Steven C. Sereboff 21

James R. Hietala 20

Fadi N. Kiblawi 20

George C. Summerfield 20

Darren M. Jiron 20

Michelle K. Holoubek 20

John V. Biernacki 19

Christopher Frerking 19

Brian E. Ferguson 19

James M. Heintz 19

Vivek A. Ganti 19

Brent K. Yamashita 19

Lionel M. Lavenue 19

Orion Armon 19

P. Andrew Riley 19

Kevin K. McNish 19

Evangeline Shih 18

Joseph J. Richetti 18

Kevin R. Greenleaf 18

Walter D. Davis, Jr. 18

James T. Wilson 18

Andrew G. Heinz 18

Dion M. Bregman 18

Brent R. Babcock 18

Lissi Mojica 18

Chad C. Walters 18

Raymond A. Joao 18

Gregory J. Gonsalves 18

Mitchell G. Stockwell 18

Sean Luner 18

Edward H. Sikorski 18

Michael J. Lennon 17

Martin R. Bader 17

Stephen S. Korniczky 17

Steven M. Bauer 17

Don Daybell 17

Eliot D. Williams 17

David A. Randall 17

Frank A. Angileri 17

Nam H. Kim 17



OUR YEAR IN REVIEW WE’VE MADE A FEW IMPROVEMENTS!

Each year, the patent landscape shifts and grows more complex. And each year we work to improve Docket Navigator to help you better navigate that changing environment. Here is a short list of enhancements we’ve completed or are nearing completion.

NEW ANALYTICS TOOLS

CASES BY YEAR

Displays the number of patent cases per year in the U.S. district courts, the PTAB, and the ITC. The chart may be filtered by court, judge, company, law firm, or many other filters. Like all of our analytics tools, you can now create great looking PDF charts for clients and colleagues with the click of a button.

See a sample search here: Cases by Year

MOTION SUCCESS RATES

Do you ever need to know a judge’s track record for granting a particular type of motion? Or how a change in the patent laws or a Supreme Court decision is being interpreted by district courts? The Motion Success Report can provide answers. For example, you can view the success rates of motions for summary judgment of noninfringement in the Northern District of California or the trend for motions to dismiss on the basis of 35 USC § 101 and how decisions like Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International have impacted that trend. Like all of our analytics tools, you can now create great looking PDF charts for clients and colleagues with the click of a button.

LAW FIRM PROFILES

Many of our customers have asked how to view a law firm’s experience in patent litigation. Our new law firm profiles show the cases a law firm has been involved with, the firm’s clients, remedies for and against those clients, patent determinations for patents that their clients asserted, as well as patents they defended their clients against.

TIME TO MILESTONES REPORT NOW LINKS TO UNDERLYING DATA

The Time to Milestones Report is a powerful tool that lets you answer timing questions like “Will I get to a jury trial quicker in in the Eastern District of Texas or the District of Delaware?” (hint: EDTX is faster by about 8 months). Now when you click on one of the “milestones” in our Time to Milestones reports, you can see all the court documents used to calculate the reported times.

PATENT STATISTICS PAGE

You can view a variety of patent litigation statistics 24/7 at https://www.docketnavigator.com/stats.

MORE THAN

500,000 SEARCHES PERFORMED

EVERY MONTH

MORE THAN

64,000 ACTIVE ALERTS

MORE THAN

10,000,000 DOCKET REPORTS

DELIVERED

MORE THAN

13,000 SUBSCRIBERS

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/63f71051-4a4a-261a-8097-7814bc575718

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/bbb10216-40c5-c045-3f9d-5feaf81be411

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/c1e66afd-f2f0-30b2-0ed3-38e4025b89ab

https://www.docketnavigator.com/detail/summary/firm/32829

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/26fd72d6-e7a8-959b-bd49-3c1709168b82

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/efc1d5d4-9590-a4d3-4f09-269106a59cb6

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/26fd72d6-e7a8-959b-bd49-3c1709168b82

https://www.docketnavigator.com/stats



NEW SEARCHES

DETERMINATIONS

The Docket Navigator search page now supports a new search type called Determinations. This search returns a list of determinations for each patent, linked to the document that contained the court’s ruling. A determination is a judicial or administrative decision about the infringement, validity, or enforceability of a patent.

PTAB INSTITUTION DECISIONS

The Docket Navigator search page now supports a new search type called PTAB Institutions. With this new search, you can now create a list of every ground that was granted or denied in an institution decision complete with the challenged claim numbers. This is a great tool for answering questions like “How many times has the PTAB granted or denied a request for review based on the ground of Indefiniteness?”

CUSTOMIZED CASE ALERTS NOW SENT MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY Our New Case Alerts, which report all new cases, are generated continuously throughout the day (and evenings, weekends, and holidays). Several subscribers asked for the ability to focus these alerts to cases involving particular parties. We support that functionality with customized Docket Alerts, but until recently, Docket Alerts were generated only once per day. We enhanced our system for generating customized Docket Alerts to address this need. Now, if you create a Docket Alert on Cases using a party name as a filter, you’ll be notified throughout the day if that party shows up on a case.

You can learn more about alerts, including the difference between New Case Alerts and customized Docket Alerts, in our new Learning Center here.

NEW LEARNING CENTER We now have a great page full of helpful tips and tricks on how to use Docket Navigator. You can access the Learning Center anytime by clicking HELP at the top of our webpages. The new Learning Center includes:

o A helpful list of FAQ’s, in most instances complete with live links to the search results for a variety of questions.

o Tips on how to manage your alerts, including how to edit your list of recipients.

o Some great new videos that explain Time to Milestones and Motion Success Analytics charts and how to create or edit them.

o Our complete Scope of Data.

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/5053dddd-e32d-cdf7-a194-f921247ca82c

https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/e8de135d-4275-4cd3-06fa-0ffb6d6ce8f3

http://home.docketnavigator.com/learning-center/

http://home.docketnavigator.com/learning-center/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIxtAx7-Xsu__mAfYkc0muQ



ABOUT OUR METHODOLOGY OUR PROCESS Patent litigation statistics are available from numerous sources. But are they reliable? That depends in large part on the quality of the underlying data.

o How was the data collected? o How is it structured? o Who reviewed the data, and on what basis were codes and classifications assigned? o Is the process transparent and is the underlying data available for independent analysis?

We collect raw data from government sources, primarily PACER, USPTO databases, and EDIS. Our U.S.-based editors clean, normalize, and correct the data by hand. The refined data is reviewed by experienced U.S. patent litigators or patent agents who code, classify, and summarize the data, again by hand. We rarely rely on automated processes and do so only where interpretation of the data is not required and the automated processes consistently yield highly accurate results. Even then, the data is reviewed for accuracy. Additionally, our software engineers have developed a series of checks and safety nets to identify gaps or inconsistencies in our data. Most of the data used to create this report was first published in the Docket Report and vetted by the 13,000+ patent professionals who subscribe to Docket Navigator. The underlying data is available to Docket Navigator subscribers for independent review and analysis via our publicly available database.

For a complete description visit our scope of data page.

Public sources usually contain limited search capability.

No “export” feature means most data must be scraped from web pages.

Public sources often update their systems, requiring updates to the processes used to extract the public data.

Once acquired, the data is stored in a database that models the complexities of modern litigation.

For example, a transferred or consolidated case may span more than one PACER docket sheet. If the database architecture does not accurately model these case relationships, events may be associated with the wrong case and cases may be miscounted.

Add missing data. Some courts do not list all counsel in the docket sheets. For example, out of state attorneys appearing pro hac vice sometimes must be added to the case data.

Correct erroneous data. Documents are sometimes filed in the wrong case.

Normalize spelling variations. Companies, lawyers and law firms may appear in the public record under different names, for example “John Doe” and “John D. Doe, Jr.”

Most of the interesting data is hidden in documents and must be extracted. For example:

Type of motion Motion outcome (grant,

deny, etc.) Claim constructions Patent determinations

(infringed, invalid, etc.) Remedies (money

damages, injunctions, etc.)

PTAB institutions Patent accusations and

outcomes (see below)

Use only structured, cleaned, corrected, and accurately derived data to power:

Current awareness Business Development Litigation Tracking Early Case Analysis Case Strategy

DELIVER DERIVE ADDITIONAL DATA

CLEAN & CORRECT STRUCTURE ACQUIRE FROM

GOVERNMENT SOURCES

http://home.docketnavigator.com/learning-center/#scope



PATENT ACCUSATIONS A Patent Accusation is a more granular way to measure the volume of litigation activity than counting the number of cases or litigants. As used in this report, the term means a request for relief in a U.S. district court, the ITC or the PTAB (AIA proceedings), the resolution of which could determine if a patent has been infringed or the patent’s validity or enforceability.

For example, a civil case with one plaintiff asserting one patent against one defendant would involve one patent accusation, whereas a case with one plaintiff asserting 5 patents against 10 defendants would result in 50 infringement accusation. Multiple claims involving the same parties and patents (e.g., a claim of infringement and a declaratory judgment counterclaim of invalidity or unenforceability) are counted as a single accusation. In a PTAB proceeding, each challenge to the patentability of a patent would create one patent accusation.

ACCUSATION OUTCOMES (coming soon) Many types of sporting events have exactly one winner and exactly one loser. But modern litigation is far more nuanced. Judges, juries, and litigants often find middle ground that falls short of complete victory for either side. Cases against multiple defendants will have multiple outcomes. Yet even between a single plaintiff and defendant, multiple patents may be asserted, creating the possibility of multiple outcomes – one for each patent. Docket Navigator tracks this information at a granular level, recording a separate outcome for every Patent Accusation. (See Patent Accusation, above, for more information.) For example, in a case in which a single plaintiff (Company A) asserts two patents (Patents X & Y) against two defendants (Companies B & C), the following information can be derived from the court record and recorded in the Docket Navigator database:

PATENT ACCUSATIONS OUTCOMES

Patentee Asserted Patent Accused Infringer/Patent Challenger Result

Company A Patent X Company B Patentee Win

Company A Patent X Company C Accused Infringer Win

Company A Patent Y Company B Patentee Win

Company A Patent Y Company C Patentee Win

Accusation and outcome data is not available from any public source of litigation data. It must be derived, by hand, from court documents. (See “Our Process,” above, for more information.) Through the end of 2015, Docket Navigator has coded accusations for 52,757 cases, creating more than 361,628 new accusation records.

MEASURING LITIGATION ACTIVITY



WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT ACCUSATIONS AND OUTCOMES? The addition of accusations and outcomes data greatly enhances the power of the Docket Navigator database and its ability to provide you with helpful information. For example, the data can be used to:

o More accurately measure litigation activity. Cases come in all sizes. Some are simple, some are complex. Systems that analyze cases as the most granular level gloss over this important distinction. With the addition of accusation data, we can now analyze the accusations asserted in those cases and readily distinguish between simple and complex cases. Among other things, this mitigates the artificial increase in new case filings following enactment of the AIA joinder rules. The charts on pages 19 and 23 provide examples of how this data can be used in the context of overall litigation activity. But the data can be used on more focused inquiries as well. For example, we can now measure and report the experience of lawyers, law firms, judges, and companies in terms of accusations instead of cases.

o More accurate track records. One of the most frequent questions we receive from subscribers is the ability to track outcomes by court, judge, law firm, company, patent, etc. Tracking outcomes on a case-by-case basis cannot provide an adequate answer. Consider the example of a defendant who prevails on liability for 9 out of 10 asserted patents, protects its most valuable product or service, but loses on the 1 remaining patent. Should that case be counted as a “win” for plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel or a “loss” for defendant and defense counsel? Accusation and outcome data allow us to answer that question with a level of precision never before possible. The same is true of questions about the track record of a court or judge, or the litigation history of a patent.

PATENT DETERMINATIONS

A patent determination occurs when a court or administrative agency issues a decision that determines the infringement, validity, or enforceability of one or more claims of a patent. There may be more than one determination per patent and determinations may be overturned or reversed in later proceedings. For purposes of this report, determinations based on stipulated requests have been excluded.

RELATED CASES

The concept of a “case” is relatively well understood by those involved in litigation. But cases are often related to other cases in ways that blur the distinction between the two. For example, if a case is transferred to another court, how many cases exist? Is it accurate to say the plaintiff filed two cases or that the patent was asserted in two cases? No; there is a single case that existed in two different courts at two different times. As a result, there are two different case numbers and two dockets. How those two dockets are publicly recorded is determined by local judges and clerks, and varies substantially. For example, when receiving a transferred case, some courts duplicate all the documents that were previously filed in the earlier case, but other courts do not. Similarly, when entering orders in consolidated actions, some courts record a single document that applies to all constituent cases, while other courts enter duplicate documents in each individual case. Correctly associating events (pleadings, motions, orders, etc.) with the correct proceeding is crucial for accurate legal research and analysis. Litigation data services that follow a simplistic approach treat each docket as a separate case and are at the whim of local policies when determining which documents and events should be associated with a particular case. This can lead to both double counting and missing key litigation events.

Docket Navigator takes a different approach. We manually associate documents, and all of the data associated with those documents, with each case in which it forms a part of the proceedings. This association allows us to accurately identify all cases in which an instance of a particular action, event or sequence of events occurred. It also allows us to correctly identify unique instances of particular events and disregard any duplicate recording due to local recording policies.



LITIGATION MILESTONES

A litigation milestone is an event that marks meaningful progress in a patent litigation proceeding such as claim construction, summary judgment, entry of a damage award or injunction, trial, etc. Milestones are determined based on Docket Navigator’s classification of pleadings, orders, and other litigation documents.

TRIAL EVENTS

A trial event is an event in a patent litigation proceeding that indicates a trial occurred in a district court proceeding. Jury trials are indicated by a verdict and bench trials are indicated by the filing of a FRCP 52 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

EARLY STAGE AND MATURE STAGE

The chart on page 29 compares decision outcomes for patent validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in early stages of litigation with outcomes in mature stages. For purposes of that chart, “early stage” means a § 101 challenge that was asserted in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6). “Mature stage” means a § 101 challenge that was addressed in any other type of court document, including, for example, motions for summary judgment, motions for judgment as a matter of law, motions for judgment on the pleadings, findings of fact and conclusions of law, motions for leave to file any of the above, motions for judgment on partial findings, and the like.

CHALLENGED CLAIM – PTAB INSTITUTIONS

As used in the charts on pages 35 – 41, a challenged claim means a patent claim that is challenged in a PTAB proceeding as being unpatentable based on a specified statutory ground (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102). All arguments and evidence supporting the ground are considered together. For example, if a petitioner argues that Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in light of two different prior art references, both arguments will be considered a single challenge. Thus, if the PTAB accepts either argument or both, the claim will be regarded as instituted on 35 U.S.C. § 102 grounds. If both arguments are rejected, the claim will be regarded as denied institution on 35 U.S.C. § 102 grounds.



THE FINE PRINT Download or use of this report is subject to our TERMS OF USE.

You are free to share this report with others. You may also utilize the data or charts in your own publications, but in all cases you must clearly attribute the source by including the following citation: “Source: Docket Navigator”. You are prohibited from storing, publishing, selling, licensing or otherwise making available the information as part of any database or service.

Every effort is made to ensure that all information published is correct. However, we disclaim any liability for errors or omissions. All of the information contained in this report is provided “as is”, “with all faults” and “as available.” We make no express or implied warranties or guarantees about this report or any of its content.

TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, WE DISCLAIM IMPLIED WARRANTIES THAT THE REPORT AND ITS CONTENT ARE MERCHANTABLE, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURATE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NEED, TIMELY, RELIABLE, OR NONINFRINGING.

No legal advice is intended or offered by Docket Navigator in making any of the content available, and Docket Navigator disclaims any and all liability related to any decision taken by a party in reliance upon the content. See our Terms of Use available at (http://home.docketnavigator.com/terms-of-use/) for a full description of the conditions on which this information is provided.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If this report is your first introduction to Docket Navigator, we invite you to subscribe to our service. Docket Navigator is unlike any other legal research database. The daily curation, categorization, and annotation of every significant event in every patent case in the United States is the cornerstone of our product.

Docket Navigator is an essential tool for 100+ federal judges and clerks, 300+ PTAB judges and paralegals, 500+ in-house attorneys and researchers, and more than 12,000 outside attorneys, including 88 of the top 100 law firms. Contact us today to see why.

[email protected]

http://home.docketnavigator.com/terms-of-use/

http://home.docketnavigator.com/terms-of-use/