analyzing the analytics - american association of law libraries...analyzing the analytics : a...

Analyzing the Analytics : a

Comparison of Platforms October 19, 2016

Diana Koppang, Presenter

Library Manager

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

312.269.5219

dkoppang@ngelaw.com

Sarah Mauldin, Moderator

Director of Library Services

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

smauldin@sgrlaw.com

“The Power of Legal Analytics”

Thank you to the fantastic panel!

Stefanie Frame (Foley & Lardner)

Jeremy Gresham (Levenfeld Pearlstein)

Greg Leighton (Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg)

Sarah Mauldin (Smith, Gambrell & Russell)

“The Power of Legal Analytics”

• Terms

– Authority Control

• List of Names, Companies, Judges, Courts – not reliant

on keyword searching

– Name Normalization

• Notes what variations were included in Authority Control

– Google Syndrome – will basic searchers get

accurate results

• Analytical Reports v. Searching

Notes on Analysis

• Thomson Reuters Monitor Suite

• Bloomberg Law Litigation Analytics

• Docket Navigator

• Lex Machina

• Reed Tech (Lexis) Patent Advisor

Platforms Compared

• Ravel Law

• Lexis atVantage - to be relaunched as Client

Profiler in January 2017

• Legal Metric

• Patent Heat Map products

Platforms Not Compared Today

• Representation

• Judicial

• Area of experience in patent cases (art unit)

• Motion/Timeline/Success

• Comparing/Stacking Firms, Judges,

Jurisdictions

Levels of Analytics - Litigation

• Court coverage

• Date range

• Search functionality

• Authority control/name normalization

• Exporting options

• Monitoring/Alerting

Litigation Factors for Comparison

• Date range

• Level of detail

• Authority control/name normalization

• Art unit

• Examiner Stats

• Timeline

• Success Rate

• Searching functionality

• Exporting functionality

• Monitoring/Alerting

Patent Analytics Factors

• Financial Advisors

• Law Firms

• Timelines

• Price Range

• Break down of Target/Acquirer/Seller

• Location of Companies

• Challenges

Deal Analytics Factors

• What does date range mean? Date of filing or last

date of activity?

• When is a judge tagged to an order or case? When

they’re “present” or when they signed an order?

• How is predictive searching handled?

• Are more complex search options available?

• What copyright limitations are there on sharing report

results with potential clients or current clients?

• Can you get to underlying documents or does the

platform tie to related platforms?

Your Further Analysis

• Concurrent trials for multiple products.

• Minimum of one week, with option to extend.

• Multiple trial seats if possible.

• For date range – don’t pick “today” or

“present” as end date.

• Chart/crowd source your findings.

• Export findings in multiple formats and filters

for post-trial review.

• Screen shots.

Trial Tips

• Company Name that could be misspelled, or might

easily (but not too common, i.e. “Smith”) be a

surname.

• Subsidiaries that don’t all include the parent

company’s name.

• Large Private Company – should have a good

amount of results; public companies are too easy.

• National presence, with variety of case types,

including state courts.

• In existence for at least 10 years.

Trial Tips – Choice of Subject

• Write out the criteria – especially when involving

multiple trial users and/or non-current trials across

platforms.

• For patent litigation:

• Sample utility and design patents – granted in last

10-20 years.

• Case where patents were added in amended

complaints.

• Include magistrate judges in tests.

Trial Tips

• Sample utility and design patents – granted in last 10-20

years.

• Case where patents were added in amended complaints.

• Include magistrate judges in tests.

• Company with IP holding subsidiary/affiliate.

• Include PTAB and ITC in tests.

• Assignee accuracy.

• Ability to confirm correct formatting, such as Docket

Navigator’s “unlitigated” status v. “no criteria matches”

Trial Tips – Patent Litigation

• Ask who really has to be counted within a

practice group – all, just litigators, or just

prosecution attorneys.

• Be wary of multi-year contracts as this is a

rapidly developing area of research. Ask for a

lock rate with an option to not renew.

• Auto Renewal clauses are the devil.

• Trial! Trial! Trial! As in, “we won’t continue

contract discussions without a trial.”

Negotiation/Contract Advice

• One Provider concerns – will your access to

underlying data be limited if you don’t have

the related platform? Possibly have this noted

in your contract as an “out” option.

• What’s available now – not what’s available

later. If promised later, again, have a deadline

in your contract with an out clause.

Thoughts on Pricing/Contracts

• Knowledge of product/contract connections.

• Understand nuances of searching to fully

utilize product.

• Understand the roadblocks to reliable data.

• Understand likely adoption rate by attorneys.

• This is True Competitive Intelligence.

Why Librarians not Marketing

Should be Making this Decision

Questions?

Slides and Chart will be available

on PLLIP website and emailed

to all webinar attendees.

Diana Koppang

dkoppang@ngelaw.com

(312) 269-5219