2014 patent litigation year in review

by Brian C. HowardLegal Data Scientist & Director of Analytics Services

Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review i

Executive Summary

2014 was a turbulent year in patent litigation: the Supreme Court

weighed in on attorneys’ fees (in Octane and Highmark, decided April

29, 2014), and on patentable subject matter (in Alice, decided June

19, 2014); patent reform was much discussed in Washington, and the

second half of the year saw lower levels of new district court case fi lings,

but higher levels of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) fi lings than

recent years.

Against this backdrop, Lex Machina’s second annual Patent Litigation

Year in Review seeks to provide insight into the main trends of 2014

and the mechanisms driving them, and to showcase the value of Legal

Analytics® in informing business and strategic decisions about litigation.

Regardless of which side of a complaint (or retainer agreement) one fi nds

oneself, understanding the data behind the business of patent litigation

has become indispensable to assessing strategic opportunities and risk,

and to budgeting accordingly.

Th is report examines the key axes of legal data and their interactions,

drawing upon Lex Machina’s platform that combines data from PACER,

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 2014

include:

U.S. District Courts:

• Filing Trends - Although the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware remain the most popular courts for new patent cases, both saw a net decrease from 2013 in new cases fi led (-4.9% for Eastern Texas but -41.2% for Delaware).

• Case Timing - Both the 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 transfer motions decided in 2014, the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California both saw near parity in their grant /deny rates, while Delaware and the Cen-tral District of California both exhibited a higher motion grant rate.

• ANDA Cases and Design Patent Cases - Neither type of case has been aff ected by the general downturn in new patent case fi lings.

Lex Machina’s 2014 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 fi ling trends, case timing, motions, judges, top law fi rms, patent trends, parties and damages to showcase the power of Legal Analytics .

• ANDA Cases and Design Patent Cases - Neither type of cabeen aff ected by the general downturn in new patent case

Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 63ii

Judges:

• Judge Rodney Gilstrap (E.D.Tex.) had 982 new cases in 2014, the most of any district court judge.

• Judges Sue Robinson (D. Del.), Leonard Davis (E.D.Tex.), and Richard Andrews (D.Del.) lead in dispositive summary judgments.

Law Firms:

• Fish & Richardson led nationally by open cases, while Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tun-nell in Delaware and the Tadlock fi rm in Texas led in their respective districts.

• Whether for assessing competitors or fi nding new counsel, these law fi rm rankings provide a start for exploring how fi rm data can impact case strategy.

Parties:

• Large numbers of cases by eDekka and Olivistar placed them at the top of the plaintiff s list; Apple remains the top defendant.

Patents:

• Th e Alice v. CLS Bank decision coincided with a dramatic increase in § 101 invalida-tions for unpatentable subject matter.

Damages:

• Damages awarded in 2014 included approximately $1.8b total in compensatory dam-ages, with another $313m total in enhanced damages.

• Eastern Texas tends to award more damages than other districts, regardless of whether measured by ratio of damages awarded to cases fi led, or simply by median damages.

PTAB and ITC:

• PTAB fi lings are on the rise and ITC remains steady since its peak years in 2010-2011.

Th is report provides a starting point for understanding the impact of Legal Analytics

on the business and practice of patent law. It sheds light on the big trends in patent

litigation. But the full power of Legal Analytics is revealed when users engage with the

platform to produce actionable and strategic insights tailored to their particular context

and circumstance. When users have the ability to “twist the dials,” their results provide

them a competitive advantage in landing clients, winning cases, and closing deals by

making data-driven decisions.

Acknowledgement

Th ank you to Owen Byrd, Lex Machina’s General Counsel and Chief Evangelist, for his editing, as well as

his thoughts and suggestions throughout the process; to Jason Maples, Legal Data Analyst, for his tireless

work in refi ning and cross-checking the fi gures and computations in this report; and Gavin Carothers,

Lead Software Engineer, for his instruction on layout.

Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review iii

Table of Contents

Overview

Figure 1: New cases fi led, 2014, by month 1

Figure 2: New cases fi led, 2007-2014, by year 1

Figure 3: New cases fi led, 2014 vs 2013, by month, cumulative 2

Figure 4: New cases fi led, 2007-2014, by month 3

Figure 5: Defendant-case pairs, 2008-2014, by month 4

Figure 6: District Court, PTAB, and ITC new fi lings, by month 4

U.S. District Courts

New cases

Figure 7: New cases, by district 5

Figure 8: Net increase in new cases fi led 6

Figure 9: Net decrease in new cases fi led 6

Figure 10: New cases, 2007-2014, by year 6

Timing and motions in top districts and nationally

Figure 11: Top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2014 7

Figure 12: Timing for top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-

2014 7

Figure 13: Top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching trial in 2012-2014 8

Figure 14: Timing for top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching trial in 2012-2014 8

Figure 15: Top districts, timing and success of motions to transfer decided in 2014 9

Figure 16: Top districts, age of litigated patents, 2009-2014, by year 10

Figure 17: National, age of litigated patents, 2009-2014, by year 11

Bench and jury trials

Figure 18: Cases with trials, all districts 11

Figure 19: Cases with trials, by district (districts with more than 2 trials) 11

Design patents

Figure 20: Asserted patents, by design (orange) or utility (blue) and quarter, 2007-2014 12

Figure 21: Top districts, by new cases including one or more design patents 12

ANDA cases

Figure 22: New ANDA cases, by year, 2007-2014 13

Figure 23: New ANDA cases, by month, 2013-2014 13

Figure 24: Top districts, by new ANDA cases fi led (showing districts with more than 1 case) 14

Figure 25: Orange Book ingredients, sized by cases fi led and colored by patents asserted, 2013-2014 14

Judges

Figure 26: Top judges, by new cases fi led 15

Figure 27: Top judges, by cases reaching merits decisions 15

Figure 28: Top judges, by cases having summary judgment on patent infringement, validity or enforceability

Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 63iv

(showing judges having 4 or more) 16

Law Firms

Figure 29: National law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014) 17

Figure 30: Delaware law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014) 17

Figure 31: Texas law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014) 17

Parties

Figure 32: Top plaintiff s, by new cases 18

Figure 33: Top defendants, by new cases 18

Patents

Figure 34: Most frequently asserted patents 19

Figure 35: Titles of most frequently asserted patents 19

Figure 36: Patents invalided, 2007-2014, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patentable subject matter, by quarter 20

Figure 37: Patent invalidated, 2007-2014, by basis 20

Figure 38: Median patent age, by district (top 20 districts by cases fi led in 2014) 21

Damages

Figure 39: Cases, 2000-2014, with damages 22

Figure 40: Damages awarded in cases fi led 2000-2014, by type 22

Figure 41: Total damages awarded during 2014 in cases fi led 2000-2014, by type 22

Figure 42: Median damages, 2000-2014, by type 23

Figure 43: Damages percentiles, 2000-2014, by type 23

Figure 44: Districts by ratio of compensatory + enhanced damages awarded (in 2005-2014) to cases fi led (in

2005-2014) 24

Figure 45: Districts by median compensatory + enhanced damages awarded (in 2005-2014) in cases fi led (in

2005-2014) 25

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Figure 46: Petitions fi led, 2012-2014, by month 26

Figure 47: Timing to institution, settlement, termination, 2012-2014 27

Figure 48: Status breakdown, reviews fi led 2012-2014 27

U.S. International Trade Comission (ITC)

Figure 49: ITC investigations fi led, 2007-2014 28

Figure 50: ITC dispositive outcomes, all, by current Administrative Law Judge 28

Figure 51: Pending investigations, by current Administrative Law Judge 28

Lex Machina’s Data and Methodology

Lex Machina Enhancements in 2014

Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 1

Overview

Figure 2: New cases fi led, 2007-2014, by year

Figure 1: New cases fi led, 2014, by month

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

Month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Cas

es fi

led

677

415413397

440 441

387343

498

335 334332

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140K

1K

2K

3K

4K

5K

6K

Cas

es fi

led

3,557

6,082

2,7582,749

5,012

2,567 2,539

5,435

Note: All charts refl ect patent litigation (cases including at least one claim of patent infringement) in the U.S. District Courts unless otherwise stated. Where dates are omitted from captions, charts refer to 2014 data.


Figure 3: New cases fi led, 2014 vs 2013, by month, cumulative

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

Month

0K

1K

2K

3K

4K

5K

6K

Cas

es fi

led 489

479

413

415

513

500

387

335

491

423

397

441

677

600

551

440

574

332

547

334

343

514

498

401

Year20132014

2014 saw a steady increase in case fi lings through April, followed by sharp drop in May and a fl at remainder of the year, leaving total fi lings down 21% from 2013.

Th e cumulative chart below shows how the fl at second half of 2014 fell below 2013 levels.


Figure 4: New cases fi led, 2007-2014, by month

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Cas

es fi

led

677

415413

397

440 441462

387

302 302

432

307

513

281

500 514

401

319

491 489

193

339

566

600

171

398

268

231

406

479

203

423

170

505

388

220

213

213

353

241

343

209

251232

170

233

282

171

206214

547

255

222

498

246237

335

551

225

334

239

219200

200

275

332

200

253

242

574

197203

382

258

233240

367

210

534

249261

197

236

188

530

Th e Americans Invent Act (AIA), which became eff ective in September 2011, limited the number of defendants a plaintiff could sue in a single case. Th ese anti-joinder provisions make pre-AIA case fi ling rates incomparable to those from afterwards. For example, the AIA’s restriction on suing multiple defendants in the same case means that a plaintiff would have to fi le more patent cases in 2014 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 aff ected by the AIA’s change of rules: by counting each defendant in a case separately via defendant-case pairs, as shown in Figure 5.

Measured by defendant-case pairs, the AIA did not dramatically reduce patent case fi lings, as the quarters

from late 2011 to mid 2013 follow a trajectory consistent with those from 2009 to early 2011. Th is data also shows that litigation dropped in the second half of 2014 to a level more commensurate with 2009 and 2010

than the raw case fi lings alone would suggest.

In Figure 5, the dramatic spike in September 2011 corresponds to the large number of cases fi led in a small

number of days against numerous defendants; this infl ux occurred largely in the days before the anti-joinder provisions of the AIA became eff ective.

Although the U.S. District Courts have seen a decline in fi lings over the second half of 2014, the PTAB has

risen over the same time period while the ITC has remained steady. Note: Figure 6 is intended to convey a

relative sense of these trends, not their absolute sizes, which are refl ected in the separate labels for the vertical axis.


Figure 5: Defendant-case pairs, 2008-2014, by month

December 2011 June 2012 December 2012 June 2013 December 2013 June 2014 December 2014Month / Year

0

200

400

600

Cas

es fi

led

0

50

100

150

200

PTA

B p

etiti

ons

filed

0

5

ITC

inve

stig

atio

ns fi

led

677

462441440

479432

600

489491423

498500

332

415

334

505

335

413

339406

513343

405

514

574

401

521

397

566

353

530

387

534

382

551547

96

98

195

81

192190

75

110 112

72 71 69

116

66

176

126

5225

2626

157

29

142

30 31

31 40

150

77

0

3 33

3

3

3 4

444

1111

2 2222222

55 5 555

5

55 55

Figure 6: District Court, PTAB, and ITC new fi lings, by month


U.S. District CourtsNew cases

Figure 7: New cases, by district

Th e districts of Eastern Texas and Delaware continue to see the largest numbers of new patent lawsuits.

However, both saw a decline relative to 2013. Indeed, among the top districts, only the Northern District of

California and the District of New Jersey saw increases.

Th e District of New Jersey saw a particularly strong increase, fueled in part by an increase among ANDA

and pharmaceutical cases. Th e District of Delaware, however, saw the strongest absolute decrease among

districts from 2013 to 2014. In particular, several of the leading fi lers in Delaware during 2013 were less

active there in 2014:

Entity Cases fi led in D. Del. in 2013 Cases fi led in D. Del. in 2014

Wynncomm LLP 131 0Princeton Digital Image Corp. 49 0Data Carriers LLC 47 14Ubicomm LLC 46 0Delaware Radio Techs. LLC 32 0Relay IP Inc. 31 0CreateAds LLC 31 0

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

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

% c

hang

e fr

om 2

013

1,425

305

155 119

283 257

946

112 74 54

-202.7%

-122.2%

-41.2% -34.1% -42.6%

-10.9%

-66.1%

49.1%

-4.9%

3.9%


Figure 8: Net increase in new cases fi led Figure 9: Net decrease in new cases fi led

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Increase in new cases, 2013-2014

D.N.J.

M.D.Fla.

N.D.Ohio

N.D.Cal.

N.D.W.Va.

D.Md.

D.Idaho

M.D.Ga.

N.D.Ind.

W.D.Va.

139 cases49.1%

29 cases33.3%

26 cases45.6%

10 cases3.9%

9 cases81.8%

6 cases23.1%

5 cases83.3%

5 cases71.4%

5 cases35.7%

5 cases55.6%

-400 -300 -200 -100 0

Decrease in new cases, 2013-2014

D.Del.

S.D.Cal.

C.D.Cal.

S.D.Fla.

E.D.Tex.

D.Mass.

N.D.Ill.

E.D.Tenn.

D.Colo.

D.Ariz.

-390 cases-41.2%

-150 cases-202.7%

-104 cases-34.1%

-74 cases-66.1%

-70 cases-4.9%

-66 cases-122.2%

-66 cases-42.6%

-39 cases-487.5%

-31 cases-100.0%

-26 cases-118.2%

Figure 10: New cases, 2007-2014, by year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Cas

es fi

led

N.D.Ill.

N.D.Cal.

D.N.J.

C.D.Cal.

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

DistrictC.D.Cal.D.Del.D.N.J.E.D.Tex.N.D.Cal.N.D.Ill.


Timing and motions in top districts and nationally

Figure 11: Top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2014

Figure 12: Timing for top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching a claim construction hearing in 2012-2014

Lex Machina’s timing analytics help companies and law fi rms by providing data on which to make key

decisions about strategy and budget. Knowing the median time to claim construction or trial (and its

variability) can help to set client expectations, estimate outside counsel spend, and aid in settlement

negotiations.

District

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

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Cas

es re

achi

ng c

laim

con

stru

ctio

n

1,452

145

276250

91

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

Tim

e to

cla

im c

onst

ruct

ion

hear

ing

/ yea

rs

1.0

1.5

2.1

1.2

1.5

1.9

1.2

1.5

1.9

0.8

1.0

1.3

0.9

1.1

1.5


Figure 13: Top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching trial in 2012-2014

Figure 14: Timing for top districts, by cases fi led 2005-2014 and reaching trial in 2012-2014

Figure 12 shows 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 the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, or the national average (all a year and a half).

With respect to time-to-trial, Delaware and Eastern Texas off er less variability - 75% of trials in both

districts occur several months before trials in either California district. Of all the districts, Central

California shows the most variability, more so than the national average, making it more diffi cult to budget

time and resources.

District


50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Cas

es re

achi

ng tr

ial

341

49

18

63

24

District


1

2

3

4

5

6

Tim

e to

tria

l

1.8

2.3

3.3

1.7

2.4

2.8

2.0

2.2

2.7

1.6

2.1

3.6

2.0

2.3

3.3


Figure 15: Top districts, timing and success of motions to transfer decided in 2014

Motion Metrics, a Lex Machina feature which analyzes motion practice, provides key insights to litigants

in the district courts. When considering the expense of fi ling a transfer motion, parties and counsel should

know the likelihood of winning the motion - which turns out to vary greatly depending on the district.

Of transfer motions decided in 2014, the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California

both saw near parity in their grant rates, while Delaware and the Central District of California both

exhibited a higher motion grant rate.

Budgeting can also be aff ected by timing - the Central District of California, for example, decides transfer

motions in about 100 days, or roughly three times faster than either Eastern Texas or Delaware. Th e

Northern District of California was far quicker to deny transfers than grant them in 2014 - contrary to the

national trend.

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

grant deny partial grant deny grant deny grant deny grant deny partial

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Mot

ions

to tr

ansf

er

0

100

200

300

400

500

Avg

tim

e to

dec

isio

n

248 orders59.05%

164 orders39.05%

8 orders1.90%

48 orders49.48%

49 orders50.52%

37 orders71.15%

15 orders28.85%

14 orders73.68%

5 orders26.32%

8 orders44.44%

8 orders44.44%

2 orders11.11%

235.1 days

372.4 days

126.0 days

364.2 days

523.5 days

327.5 days351.7 days

112.8 days91.9 days

464.6 days

130.4 days

84.0 days

Note: Lex Machina’s platform allows users to track and analyze other, additional types of motions, including motions to dismiss, motions to stay, and summary judgment motions.


Figure 16: Top districts, age of litigated patents, 2009-2014, by year

Th e age of litigated patents - the diff erence between the time of fi ling at the PTO and the time of fi ling of a

lawsuit alleging their infringement - provides insight into the changing caseload of the district courts and its

eff ect on innovation.

For example, the Eastern District of Texas has seen the median age of its litigated patents rise dramatically

by more than 4 years since 2009. Although the California districts saw a brief bump in the age of litigated

patents in 2012, both have a median patent age in 2014 that remains about 3 years younger than Eastern

Texas.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

E.D.Tex.

D.Del.

C.D.Cal.

N.D.Cal.

0

5

10

Med

ian

pate

nt a

ge (y

ears

)

0

5

10

Med

ian

pate

nt a

ge (y

ears

)

0

5

10

Med

ian

pate

nt a

ge (y

ears

)

0

5

10

Med

ian

pate

nt a

ge (y

ears

)

11 years 68.5 days

12 years 41 days

8 years 363.5 days

12 years 135 days

13 years 216 days

10 years 117 days

11 years 72 days

12 years 2 days

10 years 195.5 days

11 years 148 days

10 years 149 days10 years 17 days

9 years 243 days

12 years 206 days

10 years 60 days

9 years 74.5 days8 years 283.5 days

8 years 121 days

9 years 272 days 9 years 327 days

9 years 332.5 days

10 years 300 days

9 years 125 days9 years 44 days


Figure 17: National, age of litigated patents, 2009-2014, by year

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

5

10

Med

ian

pate

nt a

ge (y

ears

) 9 years 362 days

10 years 62 days

10 years 68 days

8 years 321.5 days

10 years 236 days

9 years 82.5 days

Figure 18: Cases with trials, all districts

Jury only Bench only Both Total

75 41 6 122

Figure 19: Cases with trials, by district (districts with more than 2 trials)

District Jury only Bench only Both TotalDistrict of Delaware 14 15 0 29Eastern District of Texas 12 0 0 12District of New Jersey 1 10 0 11Central District of California 2 5 2 9Northern District of California 0 9 0 9Northern District of Illinois 3 2 0 5Western District of Wisconsin 0 4 0 4Southern District of California 0 4 0 4District of Massachusetts 1 1 1 3Middle District of Florida 0 3 0 3District of Oregon 0 3 0 3

Bench and jury trials


Design patents

Figure 20: Asserted patents, by design (orange) or utility (blue) and quarter, 2007-2014

Figure 21: Top districts, by new cases including one or more design patents

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Cases filed including at least one design patent and % change from 2013

C.D.Cal.

D.N.J.

S.D.Cal.

M.D.Fla.

N.D.Ill.

N.D.Ohio

S.D.N.Y.

N.D.Cal.

D.Utah

S.D.Ohio

51 cases-2.0%

14 cases14.3%

14 cases14.3%

9 cases-155.6%

9 cases44.4%

9 cases-22.2%

9 cases-33.3%

7 cases-28.6%

6 cases33.3%

6 cases16.7%

Although cases including design patents comprise a small fraction of litigated patents, the fi ling of these cases has not seen the general downturn that cases with utility patents have.

Design patent litigation is highly concentrated in the Central District of California.


Figure 22: New ANDA cases, by year, 2007-2014

Figure 23: New ANDA cases, by month, 2013-2014

ANDA cases

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

AN

DA

cas

es fi

led

432

264

261

291 294

239

218203

Lex Machina enables users to track and analyze ANDA litigation. ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug

Application) cases are related to the fi ling of these drug applications at the FDA. Th e Hatch-Waxman Act

provides a streamlined process with specifi c timelines for litigation triggered by the application process.

ANDA case fi lings have risen slightly in 2014, peaking in July. ANDA litigation is heavily concentrated in

the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware.

April 2013 August 2013 December 2013 April 2014 August 2014 December 2014Month / Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AN

DA

cas

es fi

led

66

30

54

3132

32

25

25

2524

24

36

22

10

37

11

20

3838

46

19 181815


Figure 24: Top districts, by new ANDA cases fi led (showing districts with more than 1 case)

District

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

ANDA cases filed and percentage change from 2013

D.Del.

D.N.J.

S.D.N.Y.

N.D.W.Va.

S.D.Ind.

N.D.Ill.

E.D.Tex.

M.D.N.C.

D.Mass.

S.D.Fla.

200 cases37.0%

146 cases54.8%

20 cases-10.0%

11 cases81.8%

11 cases54.5%

6 cases-83.3%

5 cases80.0%

5 cases60.0%

4 cases75.0%

3 cases0.0%

Figure 25: Orange Book ingredients, sized by cases fi led and colored by patents asserted, 2013-2014

2013 2014

ZOLEDRONIC ACID

TESTOSTERONE

TESTOSTERONE

TAPENTADOL HYDROCHLORIDE SODIUM OXYBATESAXAGLIPTIN HYDROCHLORIDERUFINAMIDE

RIVASTIGMINE

RIVASTIGMINE

RITONAVIR

PROPOFOL

PRASUGREL HYDROCHLORIDE

PITAVASTATIN CALCIUM

PALONOSETRON HYDROCHLORIDE

OXYMORPHONE HYDROCHLORIDE

OXYMORPHONE HYDROCHLORIDEOXYCODONE HYDROCHLORIDE

MILNACIPRAN HYDROCHLORIDE

METHYLPHENIDATE HYDROCHLORIDE

METFORMIN HYDROCHLORIDE

MEMANTINE HYDROCHLORIDE LOPINAVIR

LACOSAMIDE

IMATINIB MESYLATE

ICOSAPENT ETHYLHYDROCODONE BITARTRATE

GLATIRAMER ACETATE

FESOTERODINE FUMARATE

FEBUXOSTAT

FEBUXOSTAT

EVEROLIMUS

ETHINYL ESTRADIOL

ESOMEPRAZOLE MAGNESIUM

EFAVIRENZ

DRONEDARONE HYDROCHLORIDE

DONEPEZIL HYDROCHLORIDE

DICLOFENAC SODIUM

DEXMEDETOMIDINE HYDROCHLORIDEDEXLANSOPRAZOLE

DARUNAVIR ETHANOLATE

DALFAMPRIDINE

CALCIUM ACETATE CABAZITAXEL

BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDEBROMFENAC SODIUM

BEPOTASTINE BESILATE

BENDAMUSTINE HYDROCHLORIDE

BENDAMUSTINE HYDROCHLORIDEARIPIPRAZOLE

ACETAMINOPHEN

TENOFOVIR DISOPROXIL FUMARATE

SAXAGLIPTIN HYDROCHLORIDE

RITONAVIR

NAPROXEN

NALOXONE HYDROCHLORIDE

MEMANTINE HYDROCHLORIDE EMTRICITABINE

1 26# of asserted patents


Figure 26: Top judges, by new cases fi led

Rank Judge District Cases

1 Rodney Gilstrap E.D.Tex. 9822 Leonard Stark D.Del. 2743 Gregory Sleet D.Del. 2464 Richard Andrews D.Del. 2375 Sue Robinson D.Del. 2246 Robert Schroeder E.D.Tex. 2047 Michael Schneider E.D.Tex. 998 Leonard Davis E.D.Tex. 969 Mary Cooper D.N.J. 8610 Ron Clark E.D.Tex. 78

Figure 27: Top judges, by cases reaching merits decisions

Rank Judge District Cases

1 Joan Lefkow N.D.Ill. 442 Richard Andrews D.Del. 353 Leonard Davis E.D.Tex. 284 Sue Robinson D.Del. 225 Michael Schneider E.D.Tex. 176 James Gilstrap E.D.Tex. 167 Leonard Stark D.Del. 158 Gregory Sleet D.Del. 119 Sidney Stein S.D.N.Y. 99 Denise Cote S.D.N.Y. 99 Otis Wright C.D.Cal. 9

Judges

Th e Districts of Delaware and Eastern Texas dominate the list of top judges by cases fi led. Judge Gilstrap,

responsible for all patent cases fi led in Marshall, Texas during much of 2014, was assigned an incredible 982

new cases.

Judge Andrews (D. Del.) led for the most merits decisions, after Judge Lefkow (N.D.Ill.) whose many

decisions were in related cases. Judges Robinson (D. Del.) and Davis (E.D.Tex.) each saw 14 cases reach

dispositive summary judgment, followed by Judge Andrews (D.Del.) with 12.

Note: Judge Gilstrap’s large caseload comes, in part, from his being assigned all of the patent cases fi led during 2014 in the Marshall Division. See, e.g., http://goo.gl/4GZg8L, http://goo.gl/GlnDTE, and http://goo.gl/MR6C0i.


Figure 28: Top judges, by cases having summary judgment on patent infringement, validity or enforceability (showing judges having 4 or more)

Rank Judge District Cases1 Sue Robinson D.Del. 14

1 Leonard Davis E.D.Tex. 14

3 Richard Andrews D.Del. 12

4 Michael Schneider E.D.Tex. 10

5 Leonard Stark D.Del. 7

6 Otis Wright C.D.Cal. 6

7 Robert Klausner C.D.Cal. 4

7 Robert Schroeder E.D.Tex. 4

7 James Gilstrap E.D.Tex. 4

7 Andrew Guilford C.D.Cal. 4

7 Patricia Seitz S.D.Fla. 4

Note: Th is section includes only Article III judges.


Figure 29: National law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014)

Rank Firm Total cases Open cases

1 Fish & Richardson 1465 6182 Russ August & Kabat 1017 5203 DLA Piper 796 3604 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 668 3235 Perkins Coie 710 3206 Farney Daniels 624 3157 Winston & Strawn 656 2858 McCarter & English 581 2699 Alston & Bird 649 25810 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton 706 244

Figure 30: Delaware law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014)


1 Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell 1828 10512 Stamoulis & Weinblatt 1113 6533 Bayard 951 5874 Farnan 695 4775 Potter Anderson & Corroon 902 465

Figure 31: Texas law fi rms, by open cases in 2014 (fi led 2007-2014)


1 Tadlock Law Firm 805 5862 Potter Minton 1048 4112 Ward & Smith Law Firm 921 4114 Spangler Law 893 3925 Gillam & Smith 873 373

Law Firms

Among national law fi rms involved in patent litigation, Fish & Richardson remains the most active fi rm, as

it was in 2013, with over 600 cases open at any time during the 2014 year.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell continues to lead among Delaware fi rms, while the Eastern District of

Texas saw both the Tadlock law fi rm and Farnan overtake 2013’s most active fi rm, Ward & Smith.


Th e parties fi ling the most patent lawsuits in 2014 are all patent monetization entities (PMEs). eDekka and

Olivistar both fi led a large number of suits in April 2014, just before the cut-off in a circulated draft of a

patent reform law that would have applied a new fee-shifting regime to cases fi led after the cut-off .

Apple led again as the most-sued patent defendant. Th ree pharmaceutical companies (Actavis, Watson

Laboratories, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals) were among the top defendants in 2014; the top defendants in

2013 were all technology companies.

Parties

Note: Parties as listed do not include subsidiaries or serious misspellings. Figures 32 and 33 exclude declaratory judgment cases.

Figure 32: Top plaintiff s, by new cases

Figure 33: Top defendants, by new cases

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Cases filed

EDEKKA LLC

OLIVISTAR LLC

LOGITRAQ LLC

SIMON NICHOLAS RICHMOND

HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC

PENOVIA LLC

PRESQRIBER LLC

UNILOC LUXEMBOURG SA

UNILOC USA INC

QUALIQODE LLC

PANTAURUS LLC

130 cases

61 cases

58 cases

58 cases

54 cases

49 cases

44 cases

44 cases

44 cases

42 cases

41 cases

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cases as defendant

APPLE INC

ACTAVIS INC

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC

AMAZONCOM INC

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD

WATSON LABORATORIES INC

GOOGLE INC

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LLC

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC

LG ELECTRONICS INC

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

HTC CORPORATION

58 cases

44 cases

43 cases

41 cases

38 cases

36 cases

35 cases

35 cases

34 cases

33 cases

33 cases

29 cases


Figure 34: Most frequently asserted patents

Rank Patent Cases Original assignee or inventors(s) Plaintiff

1 6,266,674 130 Donald J Henja eDekka

2 6,975,222 58 Baldev Krishan Logitraq

2 6,556,905 58 Lisa M. Mittelsteadt, John Mittelsteadt,

Robert J. Crawford

Logitraq

3 8,239,481 50 Vigilos Olivistar

3 6,839,731 50 Vigilos Olivistar

6 5,822,221 49 Frank S. Groenteman Penovia

7 7,196,477 48 Simon Richmond Richmond



10 5,630,069 42 Action Tech QualiQode

Figure 35: Titles of most frequently asserted patents

Rank Patent Title

1 6,266,674 Random access information retrieval utilizing user-defi ned labels

2 6,975,222 Asset tracking apparatus and method

2 6,556,905 Vehicle supervision and monitoring

3 8,239,481 System and method for implementing open-control remote device control

3 6,839,731 System and method for providing data communication in a device network

6 5,822,221 Offi ce machine monitoring device

7 7,196,477 Solar powered light assembly to produce light of varying colors

7 7,429,827 Solar powered light assembly to produce light of varying colours

7 8,362,700 Solar powered light assembly to produce light of varying colors

10 5,630,069 Method and apparatus for creating workfl ow maps of business processes

Patents

Note: Figures 34 and 35 exclude declaratory judgment cases.


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, patent invalidations under § 101 have risen to record levels.

Th e age (from the patent fi ling date) of patents at the time of case fi ling varies signifi cantly across the top 20

busiest districts of 2014: ANDA-heavy jurisdictions like the Districts of New Jersey (5 years, 313 days) and

Southern New York (4 years, 227 days) have a median patent age several years younger than that in Eastern

Texas. Th e Middle District of Florida and the Western District of Washington, along with the Eastern

District of Texas, all have a median patent age over 13 years.

Note: Patents may be invalidated on more than one basis.

Figure 36: Patents invalided, 2007-2014, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patentable subject matter, by quarter

Figure 37: Patent invalidated, 2007-2014, by basis

Jan 1, 08 Jan 1, 09 Jan 1, 10 Jan 1, 11 Jan 1, 12 Jan 1, 13 Jan 1, 14 Jan 1, 15Quarter / Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pat

ents

inva

lidat

ed u

nder

35

U.S

.C. ß

101

1 1

28

17

4

455

3

22

2

222

2

77

11

1111

9

Alice v. CLS Bank decided, 6/19/2014

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Pat

ents

inva

lidat

ed

All Invalidity Merit Decisions

112103

102

101

Other

Basis for invalidity101102103112Other


Figure 38: Median patent age, by district (top 20 districts by cases fi led in 2014)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Median patent age (years)

M.D.Fla.

E.D.Tex.

W.D.Wash.

D.Utah

S.D.Fla.

D.Del.

D.Mass.

C.D.Cal.

N.D.Cal.

E.D.Va.

N.D.Tex.

N.D.Ga.

N.D.Ill.

D.Minn.

E.D.Mich.

W.D.Tex.

S.D.Cal.

D.Colo.

D.N.J.

S.D.N.Y.

10 years 195.5 days

5 years 343.5 days

13 years 320 days

13 years 216 days

10 years 110 days

13 years 68 days

11 years 71 days

10 years 60 days

9 years 327 days

9 years 205 days

6 years 313 days

5 years 313 days

4 years 227 days

12 years 5 days

9 years 91 days

9 years 55 days

8 years 93 days

8 years 44 days

8 years 41 days

8 years 38 days


Damages

Compensatory damages continue to be awarded in few cases, around 1.8% of all terminated cases fi led since

the year 2000. 2014 saw the award of approximately $1.8B total in compensatory damages across 68 cases,

with another $313M total in enhanced damages across 8 cases.

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 fi led since the year 2000, 90% of the total compensatory awards have been less than

$27.1M, 75% less than $5.3M, and half less than approximately $420,000.

Understanding the propensity of districts to award damages impacts litigation exposure, as the amount of

damages awarded varies disproportionately across districts. Relative to the number of cases fi led 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 39: Cases, 2000-2014, with damages

Cases terminated since 2000 42,805Cases terminated since 2000 on the merits 5,720 13.4% of terminated casesCases terminated since 2000 on the merits with compensatory damages 772 1.8% of terminated cases

Figure 40: Damages awarded in cases fi led 2000-2014, by type

Compensatory damages: Reasonable royalties $8,752,641,904 Lost profi ts $3,235,401,120 Compensatory lump $2,729,873,149 Total compensatory damages $14,717,916,174Enhanced damages $1,301,468,830Total damages* $16,019,385,005

Figure 41: Total damages awarded during 2014 in cases fi led 2000-2014, by type

Compensatory damages: Reasonable royalties $699,219,349 Lost profi ts $498,901,478 Compensatory lump $644,541,555 Total compensatory damages $1,842,662,383Enhanced damages $312,316,022Total damages* $2,154,978,405

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


Figure 42: Median damages, 2000-2014, by type

Figure 43: Damages percentiles, 2000-2014, by type

Year Reasonable Royalties Lost Profits Compensatory Lump Enhanced Damages

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014 $600,0007 cases

$698,9656 cases

$137,50013 cases

$540,50016 cases

$265,84011 cases

$1,200,00013 cases

$306,6699 cases

$504,71716 cases

$729,17422 cases

$372,44312 cases

$513,00020 cases

$604,5688 cases

$203,7076 cases

$40,0005 cases

$86,5603 cases

$2,049,97224 cases

$550,00025 cases

$851,74720 cases

$337,50028 cases

$129,96030 cases

$216,57830 cases

$125,00035 cases

$300,00037 cases

$139,53039 cases

$232,50028 cases

$147,50044 cases

$107,06828 cases

$51,93734 cases

$20,00011 cases

$5,00013 cases

$1,055,50012 cases

$4,500,0005 cases

$1,600,00017 cases

$2,358,61313 cases

$3,219,86312 cases

$3,721,24810 cases

$1,085,59614 cases

$150,0005 cases

$1,907,0128 cases

$157,50010 cases

$1,119,58210 cases

$866,0003 cases

$69,7985 cases

$14,3283 cases

$2,100,0001 cases

$3,000,00025 cases

$403,00025 cases

$1,980,57436 cases

$860,00030 cases

$457,98723 cases

$5,459,00037 cases

$2,539,46835 cases

$454,61731 cases

$400,59713 cases

$850,00015 cases

$245,00017 cases

$354,50818 cases

$106,1339 cases

$287,6914 cases

$36,6404 cases

$0.10M $1.00M $10.00M $100.00M $1,000.00M

Damages amount (shown on truncated logarithmic scale)

ReasonableRoyalties

Lost Profits

CombinedCompensatory

EnhancedDamages

25P: $98K

25P: $150K

25P: $60K

25P: $90K

Max: $1,248.69M

Max: $1,168.47M

Max: $1,672.59M

Max: $287.20M

90P: $53.23M

90P: $52.01M

90P: $27.10M

90P: $16.51M

Median: $1.00M

Median: $1.34M

Median: $0.41M

Median: $0.49M

75P: $11.7M

75P: $8.9M

75P: $5.3M

75P: $2.5M

Note: In cases where multiple damages awards were made in separate years, the total sum is refl ected under the most recent year. In Figure 43, combined compensatory damages include compensatory lump awards.


Because cases often take 2-3 years to reach the damages stage, there is an aggregate time gap between when

a district sees an increase in case fi lings and the corresponding increase in total damages. Delaware, in particular, saw an increase in the number of cases fi led in 2012-2014. Th ese cases, counted towards the

district’s case count but largely too young to have reached damages by the end of 2014, may partly account

for Delaware’s low ratio, especially in light of the higher median awards shown in Figure 45.

Figure 44: Districts by ratio of compensatory + enhanced damages awarded (in 2005-2014) to cases fi led (in 2005-2014)

0K 100K 200K 300K 400K 500K 600K 700K 800K 900K 1000K

Ratio of compensatory damages awarded to cases filed

E.D.Tex.

S.D.Cal.

N.D.Cal.

E.D.Va.

S.D.N.Y.

D.Mass.

N.D.Tex.

D.Del.

W.D.Wash.

D.N.J.

N.D.Ohio

C.D.Cal.

D.Minn.

D.Utah

D.Colo.

N.D.Ga.

N.D.Ill.

M.D.Fla.

E.D.Mich.

$5,349.37M6,157 cases filed


$613.42M1,228 cases filed





$714.34M884 cases filed











$4.00M597 cases filed National ratio: $426,108 per case filed


Figure 45: Districts by median compensatory + enhanced damages awarded (in 2005-2014) in cases fi led (in 2005-2014)

$0M $1M $2M $3M $4M $5M $6M $7M $8M $9M $10M $11M $12M $13M $14M $15M

Median compensatory damages per case

D.Del.

E.D.Va.

E.D.Tex.

D.Mass.

N.D.Cal.

S.D.N.Y.

S.D.Cal.

D.Utah

N.D.Ga.

D.N.J.

N.D.Tex.

E.D.Mich.

N.D.Ohio

D.Minn.

N.D.Ill.

C.D.Cal.

D.Colo.

W.D.Wash.

M.D.Fla.

$12.23M35 cases with damages



















National median: $836,507


Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Th e PTAB 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 fi rst day the

procedure was available.

Th e total number of new review petitions fi led at PTAB increased in 2014.

Data directly available in the Lex Machina platform shows that these review petitions reach an institution

decision in a median of 176 days, or just shy of 6 months. Th ose reaching fi nal decision have a median

duration of 519 days, with just over half of those cases terminating within a tight 2 month timeframe. Cases

settling had a much wider distribution of time-to-termination.

Over 60% of review petitions fi led at PTAB are still open: 27% pending an institution decision and 28% open and instituted.

Note: PTAB statistics include IPR and CBM reviews, but not post grant reviews (PGRs) or derivation proceedings.

Figure 46: Petitions fi led, 2012-2014, by month

August 2012 February 2013 August 2013 February 2014 August 2014Month / Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

CB

M a

nd IP

R re

view

pet

ition

s

96 98

195

81

192190

75

110 112

72 71 69

116

66

176

126

52

252626

157

29

142

30 31

31

40

150


Figure 48: Status breakdown, reviews fi led 2012-2014

0 days 0.5 years 1 year 1.5 years 2 years

Institution Decision

Termination: Settled

Termination: Final Decision

2,083 Trials to Institution Decision

196 Trials to Termination: Settled

307 Trials to Termination: Final Decision

95

150

176

187

238

55

234

304

384

513

423

492

523

541

588

fi

Trial Status

Open: Pending Institution Decision 570 22%

Open: Instituted 752 29%

Terminated: Not Instituted 663 26%

Terminated: Final Decision 332 13%

Terminated: Settled 259 10%

Figure 47: Timing to institution, settlement, termination, 2012-2014

Timing and trial status analytics above are captured from our platform.


U.S. International Trade Comission (ITC)

After reaching a zenith in 2010-11, ITC litigation has remained steady in the years of 2012-2014.

Figure 49: ITC investigations fi led, 2007-2014

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ITC

337

Inve

stig

atio

ns

71

43

41

39

39

34

55

31

Figure 50: ITC dispositive outcomes, all, by current Administrative Law Judge

Bullock Essex Gildea Lord Pender Shaw

Cease & Desist Order 12 11 2 1 2 2Complaint Withdrawn 12 11 6 0 8 4Consent Order 10 6 6 1 1 1General Exclusion Order 11 6 3 0 2 2Limited Exclusion Order 20 10 4 1 2 4No Violation Found 23 14 8 1 2 5Other 5 2 0 0 0 3Settlement 43 29 25 2 11 11Violation Found 17 12 5 0 1 2

Figure 51: Pending investigations, by current Administrative Law Judge

Administrative Law Judge Pending investigations

Essex 23Bullock 22Pender 20Shaw 20Lord 16Gildea 10

Note: Investigations may result in multiple outcomes.


Th is 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.

Th is 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 fi led under mistaken CoA/NoS codes (or a CoA/NoS code corresponding to

a diff erent claim, e.g. contract in a combined patent/contract case) are not missed. Th is same system also allows Lex

Machina to fi lter 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 fi rm for another, PACER may show closed cases that the

lawyer worked on at the old fi rm as having been handled by the new fi rm. When combined with law fi rm 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 fi rst days of electronic fi ling on PACER (and other data

going back even further). Th ese 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

modifi cations of judgements on appeal.

What is an ANDA case?

Th e sale of new drugs in the United States is controlled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Pharmaceutical companies launching new, branded drugs must fi le NDAs (New Drug Applications). Th e FDA also

approves applications for new generic drugs, and makers may fi le 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).

Th ese abbreviated applications assert that the generic is a duplicate of a branded drug (ANDA) or diff ers from a

branded drug but meets safety and effi cacy standards based on published studies (paper NDA). Although ANDA

and paper NDA cases diff er in some important respects, this report considers them together as “ANDA cases” as

they represent less than 3% of Hatch-Waxman litigation.

Th e 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 fi led. Th ese cases are often tried by a judge and the generic maker frequently

stipulates to infringement. Th e remedies sought often include injunctions with specifi c date bounds.

Lex Machina identifi es as ANDA cases those patent infringement cases prompted by the fi ling of an ANDA or paper

NDA by a prospective generic maker. Th is defi nition, 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’s Data and Methodology


Lex Machina Enhancements in 2014

In 2014, 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. We have introduced new data sources, enabling users to synthesize data across U.S. District Court litigation, the ITC, and PTAB.

Although we make software updates to the platform every week, below are some of the major enhancements which we introduced in 2014:

• Personalized Landing Page (Feb): See the cases and activities that matter most to you instantly on login.

• Page Sharing (Mar): Share the searches you run with colleagues or clients using an easy link.

• Search History (May): See recently visited cases, patents, and parties; never worry about losing your search again.

• ANDA Case Filter (July): Limit case lists to cases fi led pursuant to ANDA provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

• Export to PDF (July): Easily PDF your search results for archival or sharing.

• Favorite Cases (Aug): Favorites make it easier to fi nd the cases you check the most.

• Multiple Document Support (Sept): Easily fi nd attachments and exhibits without having to resort to PACER.

• Time to Claim Construction Hearing, and Case Timing Analytics (Oct.): Get a sense of how long a particular district or judge takes to reach a claim construction hearing or trial.

• Patent Damages Analytics (Nov): Zoom in on cases in any case list where damages have been awarded and see the breakdown by type.

• Motion Metrics (Nov): Find grant/deny rates by judge for dismissals, transfers, summary judgments, and more.

• Law Firm Report (Dec): Extract the fi rms representing (and opposing) parties in your case list.

Many of these new features were the result of customer feedback and collaboration. And Lex Machina has been busy so far in 2015 as well:

• PTAB trials (Feb): Find any PTAB trials for patents litigated in district court; breakdown PTAB trials by type, fi ling date, and status.

• Enhanced Page Layout for Wide Screens (March)

• Legal Analytics for Trademark and Copyright cases

Lex Machina1010 Doyle Street, Suite 200Menlo Park, CA 94025Phone: (650) 390-9500www.lexmachina.com© 2015 Lex Machina

Published March 26, 2015

2014 patent litigation year in review

Documents