analyzing the analytics - american association of law libraries...analyzing the analytics : a...
TRANSCRIPT
Analyzing the Analytics : a
Comparison of Platforms October 19, 2016
Diana Koppang, Presenter
Library Manager
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
312.269.5219
Sarah Mauldin, Moderator
Director of Library Services
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
“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
(312) 269-5219