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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 632
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 3
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 634
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 5
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%
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 636
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 7
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 638
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
National E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cas
es re
achi
ng tr
ial
341
49
18
63
24
District
National E.D.Tex. D.Del. C.D.Cal. N.D.Cal.0
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 9
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6310
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 11
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6312
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 13
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6314
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 15
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6316
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 17
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)
Rank Firm Total cases Open cases
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)
Rank Firm Total cases Open cases
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6318
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 19
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
7 7,429,827 48 Simon Richmond Richmond
7 8,362,700 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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6320
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 21
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6322
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 23
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6324
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
$1,080.45M1,941 cases filed
$613.42M1,228 cases filed
$1,694.62M4,817 cases filed
$182.60M1,662 cases filed
$298.39M3,053 cases filed
$54.51M1,682 cases filed
$714.34M884 cases filed
$332.49M606 cases filed
$285.42M714 cases filed
$196.32M496 cases filed
$110.18M426 cases filed
$44.55M412 cases filed
$54.53M603 cases filed
$25.57M489 cases filed
$19.84M423 cases filed
$18.98M558 cases filed
$11.82M616 cases filed
$4.00M597 cases filed National ratio: $426,108 per case filed
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 25
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
$9.90M13 cases with damages
$8.71M89 cases with damages
$3.26M14 cases with damages
$2.61M32 cases with damages
$1.12M16 cases with damages
$0.68M17 cases with damages
$0.44M10 cases with damages
$0.40M13 cases with damages
$0.38M13 cases with damages
$0.20M19 cases with damages
$0.19M28 cases with damages
$0.17M68 cases with damages
$0.06M19 cases with damages
$0.63M7 cases with damages
$0.24M7 cases with damages
$0.22M9 cases with damages
$0.09M5 cases with damages
$0.06M7 cases with damages
National median: $836,507
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6326
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
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 27
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6328
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.
Lex Machina – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 29
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 – 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review 6330
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