Streetspace, Inc v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 41

REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 Joint MOTION for Change Venue filed by Apple, Inc., Jumptap, Inc, Millennial Media, Inc, Navteq Corporation, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc, Quattro Wireless, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Anne E. Huffsmith in Support, # 2 Exhibit D to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith, # 3 Proof of Service)(Simmons, Luann) (lmt).

DECLARATION OF ANNE E. HUFFSMITH
IN SUPPORT OF REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS TO EXHIBIT
Exhibit
D

Page Numbers
1 - 37

DECLARATION OF ANNE E. HUFFSMITH
IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXHIBT D

AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL
Volume 38, Number 4

Page 1

Fall 2010

WHERE TO FILE YOUR PATENT CASE
Mark A. Lemley *
Abstract
Forum shopping is a feature of modern patent law. Both plaintiffs and
defendants do it. But they have traditionally done it on the basis of anecdote and
personal experience, not on the basis of actual data. In this paper, I evaluate the records
of the thirty-three most active patent district courts, considering plaintiff win rate, the
likelihood of getting to trial, and the speed of the forum. The result is a surprising
answer to the question “Where should I file my patent case?”
LIST OF TABLES
1.
2.

Table 1.
Table 2.

3.
4.

Table 3.
Table 4.

5.

Table 5.

6.
7.
8.

Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.

9.

Table 9.

District Court Outcomes 2000-2010 .............................................. 4
Number of Patent Cases Litigated in Districts with 25 or More
Outcomes ......................................................................................... 5
Patentee Win Rate in Districts with 25 or More Outcomes ....... 7
Percentage of Patent Cases that Result in Trial in Districts
with 25 or More Outcomes .......................................................... 11
Districts with 25 or More Outcomes, Sorted by Time to
Resolution ...................................................................................... 14
Districts with 25 or More Outcomes, Sorted by Time to Trial 16
Aggregate Ranking of Districts................................................... 18
Outcome-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More
Outcomes ....................................................................................... 21
Trial-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More
Outcomes ....................................................................................... 23

* © 2010 Mark A. Lemley. William H. Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School; partner,
Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, California. This paper could not have been written
without the Stanford IP Litigation Clearinghouse (IPLC), available at lexmachina.com,
and I thank both the tireless workers there and the many companies that have sponsored
the IPLC. Thanks also to Daralyn Durie, Rose Hagan, David McCombs, Clem Roberts,
and Bill Rooklidge for comments on a prior draft.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 1 of 37

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597919

2
10.
11.

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

Table 10. Speed-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More
Outcomes ....................................................................................... 25
Table 11. Appendix A: Patent Litigation Outcomes by Court ................ 28

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 2 of 37

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597919

2010

Where to File Your Patent Case

3

Forum shopping is alive and well in patent law. The patent venue
statute allows plaintiffs to file suit anywhere in the country where the
defendant’s product is sold or used. 1 Despite the existence of a unified court of
appeals that hears virtually all patent cases, 2 patent plaintiffs—and those who
might become patent defendants—spend a great deal of time and effort worrying
about where to file their case. 3 Meanwhile, accused infringers play much the
same game, looking for defense-favorable jurisdictions in which to file
declaratory judgment actions. 4 The result in many cases is a race to the
courthouse. The Federal Circuit has acted recently to rein in the worst abuses, 5
but forum shopping shows no signs of disappearing.
When selecting a forum, patent owners generally look for a few specific
characteristics. First, of course, they want to win. Therefore, the fact that a court
is considered pro-patentee is, not surprisingly, a strong reason to file suit there.
Second, at a minimum, patent plaintiffs want to get to trial. They know that
most summary judgment rulings favor defendants in patent cases, but that juries

1

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (2006) (“Any civil action . . . may be brought . . . where
the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
established place of business.”).

2

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1338(a) (2006).

3

Among the academic discussions of patent forum shopping and costs of
patent litigation, see Samson Vermont, The Economics of Patent Litigation, in
FROM IDEAS TO ASSETS: INVESTING WISELY IN INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY 327, 327-71 (Bruce Berman ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002);
Mark Chandler, The Patent System’s Relationship to Digital Entrepreneurship,
112 W. VA. L. REV. 199, 203; Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent
Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. REV. 889, 928
(2001). Carter Phillips calls forum shopping a “serious problem” in patent
litigation. Carter G. Phillips, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Distinguished Lecture
Series, 66 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1467, 1472 (2009).

4

It can be a substantial advantage to sue first as an accused infringer.
Kimberly Moore’s study found that patentees won 68% of jury trials when
they were the plaintiff but only 38% when they were the defendant in a
declaratory judgment action. Kimberly A. Moore, Judges, Juries, and Patent
Cases—An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 MICH. L. REV. 365, 368 (2000).

5

See In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1348, 91 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1027, 1035
(Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336-37, 92
U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1861, 1862-63 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
551 F.3d 1315, 1320-21, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1567, 1569-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 3 of 37

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1597919

4

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

tend to be far more pro-patentee. 6 As a result, a jurisdiction that grants many
summary judgment motions is likely to be a defense jurisdiction, while a court
that allows many matters to go to trial is likely to end up favoring the patentee.
Third, patent plaintiffs generally want speed. Because a patent usually expires
after twenty years, 7 it is a wasting asset; every year waiting to enforce the right in
court is a year that a patentee doesn’t have exclusivity in the market. For
plaintiffs only interested in damages, delay is somewhat less of a problem,
because the damages will ultimately compensate for the defendant’s use during
the court proceeding and the courts routinely award prejudgment interest.
Nonetheless, time spent waiting for a court resolution is time that cannot be
spent using the proceeds of the first suit to sue others. Further, while plaintiffs
wait for a court resolution, defendants can design around the patentee’s
invention, and delay may also bring market changes that render the patented
invention less valuable. 8
Defendants, in turn, generally want the opposite of what plaintiffs want.
A defendant’s ideal jurisdiction is one that regularly rules for defendants, is
unlikely to send cases to jury trial, and takes a long time to do both. The
incentives aren’t always perfectly misaligned—for example, a small defendant
with limited resources may be happy in a jurisdiction that resolves cases
quickly—but in general what plaintiffs want and what defendants want are
opposites.
Until recently, there was no good source of information about the
characteristics of the different district courts. Instead, lawyers tended to rely on
a combination of anecdote and their own experiences with a jurisdiction when

6

See, e.g., John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity
of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185, 212-13 (1998) (finding that patentees
win 67% of jury verdicts on validity but only 28% of pretrial motions).

7

See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (2006) (providing patents with a twenty year term of
exclusivity); 35 U.S.C. § 156(c) (2006) (allowing extension of term of
exclusivity equal to the regulatory review period to which the product is
subject, in certain circumstances); 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) (providing a number of
extensions of patent term).

8

At the same time, delay can increase the cost of litigation and, especially if
the plaintiff’s lawyer is on contingency, that cost may be borne by the
defendant. See, e.g., Steven J. Elleman, Problems in Patent Litigation:
Mandatory Mediation May Provide Settlements and Solutions, 12 Ohio St. J. on
Disp. Resol. 759, 762-63 (1997). As a result, some plaintiffs do not
particularly care about speed.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 4 of 37

2010

5

Where to File Your Patent Case

deciding where to file a patent case. This led to a herd mentality, in which patent
plaintiffs flock en masse to a particular jurisdiction perceived as favorable—the
Eastern District of Virginia a decade ago; 9 the Eastern District of Texas in the last
several years. 10 Speculation abounds about the next hot forum for patent
litigation—the Western District of Wisconsin? The Southern District of Florida?
In each instance, assessing the likelihood of winning, or even the likelihood of
trial in a patent case, was difficult, so plaintiffs focused primarily on what they
could observe: how fast a court’s docket moves.
The development of the Stanford Intellectual Property Litigation
Clearinghouse (“IPLC”) allows for a more systematic approach. The IPLC 11 is a
comprehensive set of data on every patent lawsuit filed since 2000—more than
25,000 suits in all. In this Article, I survey the outcome data of all 21,667 cases in
the IPLC database that were resolved at the district court level by March 17, 2010.
The results are presented in Table 1:

Claim
Defendant
Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

989

2,054

2,223

37

14,542

1,822

Plaintiff Win
Rate

Claimant Win

21,667

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL
OUTCOMES

Table 1: District Court Outcomes 2000-2010

32.5%

Not surprisingly, most patent cases (75.5%) settle. When cases do go to
judgment, and almost 15% do, patentees win 989 out of 3,043, or 32.5%. 12

9

See George F. Pappas & Robert G. Sterne, Patent Litigation in the Eastern
District of Virginia, 35 IDEA 361, 363 (1995).

10

See Yan Leychkis, Of Fire Ants and Claim Construction: An Empirical Study of
the Meteoric Rise of the Eastern District of Texas as a Preeminent Forum for Patent
Litigation, 9 YALE J.L. & TECH. 193, 204 (2007).

11

Available without charge at http://www.lexmachina.org for academic,
government, and non-profit users, and by subscription for commercial users
at http://www.lexmachina.com.

12

This does not include consent judgments; adding those would increase the
number substantially. But consent judgments are really settlements, not
rulings on the merits.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 5 of 37

6

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

The overall percentage (32.5%) of patentees who win, however, conceals
substantial variation in outcome by district. There are jurisdictions where the
patentee win rate is 100% (the Middle District of Georgia, for example), and
jurisdictions where it is 0% (the District of Wyoming). But these are outliers in
districts where small numbers of cases are filed; one can’t predict very much
about the District of Wyoming by knowing that the only patent case ever
resolved there on the merits in the last decade went for the defense. As a result, I
limit my analysis to districts that resolved twenty-five or more cases on the
merits in the last decade. 13 There are thirty-three such districts. In Table 2, I list
these districts in decreasing order by the number of patent cases litigated there in
the last decade.

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Central District
of California

125

219

193

11

1401

340

2289

Northern
District of
California
Northern
District of
Illinois
Eastern District
of Texas
Southern
District of New
York
District of
Delaware
District of New
Jersey
District of
Minnesota
District of
Massachusetts

56

159

131

0

1007

71

1424

47

97

119

3

874

93

1233

52

77

150

0

703

42

1024

51

87

87

1

676

116

1018

62

75

137

0

682

61

1017

29

109

201

0

588

60

987

25

54

28

0

450

43

600

43

69

41

1

392

38

584

District

Claimant Win

Table 2: Number of Patent Cases Litigated in Districts with 25 or More Outcomes

13

A full list of cases for every district is attached as Appendix A.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 6 of 37

2010

7

Where to File Your Patent Case

Southern
District of
California
Eastern District
of Michigan
Southern
District of
Florida
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
Northern
District of
Georgia
Middle District
of Florida

21

56

24

1

380

37

519

18

54

34

0

378

30

514

25

65

71

1

282

34

478

15

40

42

3

342

33

475

7

54

69

1

265

61

457

25

29

49

2

277

47

429

Northern
District of
Texas
Western
District of
Washington
Eastern District
of Virginia

27

22

55

0

283

18

405

11

44

56

0

248

33

392

14

32

69

1

229

28

373

District of
Colorado

9

27

28

0

285

17

366

District of Utah
Southern
District of
Texas
Northern
District of Ohio

15
17

39
41

34
51

2
2

247
214

20
18

357
343

13

33

14

0

268

15

343

Eastern District
of New York

6

28

29

0

245

34

342

Eastern District
of Missouri

16

24

26

0

170

55

291

District of
Arizona

10

23

28

0

193

17

271

Western
District of
Wisconsin
District of
Oregon

12

38

31

2

155

18

256

19

23

8

0

160

41

251

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 7 of 37

8

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

District of
Maryland
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

7

21

40

0

161

13

242

7

34

21

0

162

17

241

Southern
District of Ohio

8

22

23

0

149

16

218

Western
District of
Texas
District of
Nevada

9

18

17

0

151

5

200

24

28

15

0

117

14

198

District of
Columbia

9

25

19

0

59

3

115

The districts with the most patent cases largely track population and
technology centers—Northern California, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and
New Jersey—with two exceptions: the District of Delaware, which is the state of
incorporation of many litigants, and the Eastern District of Texas, which has little
connection to innovation, except its choice as a destination for patent plaintiffs.
Even among these districts, the patentee win rate varies substantially.
Table 3 sorts the top thirty-three districts by patentee win rate.

Claim
Defendant
Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Northern
District of
Texas

27

22

55

0

283

18

405

55.1%

Middle
District of
Florida
District of
Nevada
District of
Delaware
District of
Oregon

25

29

49

2

277

47

429

46.3%

24

28

15

0

117

14

198

46.2%

62

75

137

0

682

61

1017

45.3%

19

23

8

0

160

41

251

45.2%

District

Claimant Win

Table 3: Patentee Win Rate in Districts with 25 or More Outcomes

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 8 of 37

2010

9

Where to File Your Patent Case

Eastern
District of
Texas

52

77

150

0

703

42

1024

40.3%

Eastern
District of
Missouri
District of
Massachusetts

16

24

26

0

170

55

291

40.0%

43

69

41

1

392

38

584

38.4%

Southern
District of
New York
Central
District of
California
Western
District of
Texas

51

87

87

1

676

116

1018

37.0%

125

219

193

11

1401

340

2289

36.3%

9

18

17

0

151

5

200

33.3%

Northern
District of
Illinois
District of
Minnesota

47

97

119

3

874

93

1233

32.6%

25

54

28

0

450

43

600

31.6%

Eastern
District of
Virginia
District of
Arizona
Southern
District of
Texas
Northern
District of
Ohio
Southern
District of
Florida
District of
Utah
Southern
District of
California
Eastern
District of
Pennsylvania

14

32

69

1

229

28

373

30.4%

10

23

28

0

193

17

271

30.3%

17

41

51

2

214

18

343

29.3%

13

33

14

0

268

15

343

28.3%

25

65

71

1

282

34

478

27.8%

15

39

34

2

247

20

357

27.8%

21

56

24

1

380

37

519

27.3%

15

40

42

3

342

33

475

27.3%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 9 of 37

10

AIPLA Q.J.

26.7%

9

25

19

0

59

3

115

26.5%

56

159

131

0

1007

71

1424

26.0%

18

54

34

0

378

30

514

25.0%

9

27

28

0

285

17

366

25.0%

7

21

40

0

161

13

242

25.0%

12

38

31

2

155

18

256

24.0%

29

109

201

0

588

60

987

21.0%

11

44

56

0

248

33

392

20.0%

6

28

29

0

245

34

342

17.6%

7

34

21

0

162

17

241

17.1%

7

54

69

1

265

61

457

11.5%

Claimant
Win
Percentage

218

TOTAL

16

Consent
Judgment

149

Likely
Settlement

0

Indeterminat

23

Procedural

22

Claim
Defendant
Win

8

Claimant
Win

Southern
District of
Ohio
District of
Columbia
Northern
District of
California
Eastern
District of
Michigan
District of
Colorado
District of
Maryland
Western
District of
Wisconsin
District of
New Jersey
Western
District of
Washington
Eastern
District of
New York
Eastern
District of
Wisconsin
Northern
District of
Georgia
TOTAL
OUTCOMES

Vol. 38:4

989

2054

2223

37

14542

1822

21667

32.5%

The variation in win rates ranges from a high of 55% in the Northern
District of Texas to a low of 11.5% in the Northern District of Georgia.
Statistically, then, it seems that the jurisdiction in which a case is litigated has a

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 10 of 37

2010

Where to File Your Patent Case

11

significant impact on its outcome. 14 Even limiting the analysis to the largest
districts—those with more than 100 judgments on the merits—the variation is
substantial, ranging from a high of 45.3% in the District of Delaware to a low of
21% in the District of New Jersey. Notably, the Eastern District of Texas, while
having a higher than average plaintiff win rate, is not in the top five districts.
Moreover, the districts that are in the top five (the Northern District of Texas, the
Middle District of Florida, the District of Nevada, the District of Delaware, and
the District of Oregon) are not normally thought of as patent plaintiffs’
jurisdictions of choice. Indeed, accused infringers often choose the District of
Delaware, filing declaratory judgment actions there.
Conversely, patent
plaintiffs often file suit in districts, like the District of New Jersey, that have a
surprisingly low win rate. In short, if patentees or accused infringers are to pick
a forum only by win rate, both sides should probably be picking different
districts than they do.
It is important to note, however, that your mileage may vary. The win
rate in any district will be a function of the merits of the cases filed there. For
example, one experienced litigator suggested to me that patentees fare so well in
the District of Nevada and the Middle District of Florida because those
jurisdictions are home to many trade shows, and cases brought against a new
product demonstrated at a trade show may be stronger than the average patent
case. So the fact that patentees have won in a district in the past doesn’t mean
you will win if you file there. Indeed, the fact that plaintiffs gravitate to a
particular jurisdiction because it is viewed as plaintiff-friendly may reduce the
ultimate win rate if those plaintiffs assert patents of lower overall quality than
the cases filed before the influx.
Of course, win rate is not all that matters. Most cases don’t go to
judgment, after all. And if the patentee is interested in trial—which is where the
patentee win rate is the highest, and the largest judgments are possible—things
look rather different. Table 4 ranks the top thirty-three districts by the
percentage of patent cases that make it to trial.

14

To be clear, this is not a causal claim: it may be the nature of the cases, the
lawyers, or something else that explains part or all of this difference.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 11 of 37

12

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

TOTAL

Claimant
Win
Percentage

Cases to
Trial

Percentage
to Trial

District of
Delaware
Eastern
District of
Texas
Western
District of
Wisconsin
Eastern
District of
Virginia
District of
Massachusetts
Southern
District of
Florida
Eastern
District of
Missouri
Western
District of
Texas
Middle
District of
Florida
Southern
District of
Texas
District of
Oregon
Northern
District of
California
Southern
District of
California

Claim
Defendant
Win

District

Claimant
Win

Procedural

Table 4: Percentage of Patent Cases that Result in Trial in Districts with 25 or
More Outcomes

62

75

1017

45.3%

120

11.8%

52

77

1024

40.3%

82

8.0%

12

38

256

24.0%

19

7.4%

14

32

373

30.4%

24

6.4%

43

69

584

38.4%

36

6.2%

25

65

478

27.8%

21

4.4%

16

24

291

40.0%

12

4.1%

9

18

200

33.3%

8

4.0%

25

29

429

46.3%

17

4.0%

17

41

343

29.3%

12

3.5%

19

23

251

45.2%

8

3.2%

56

159

1424

26.0%

44

3.1%

21

56

519

27.3%

16

3.1%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 12 of 37

2010

13

Where to File Your Patent Case

District of
Arizona
District of
Nevada
District of
Maryland
Northern
District of
Texas
District of
Minnesota
District of
Colorado
Eastern
District of
Michigan
District of
New Jersey
Northern
District of
Georgia
Northern
District of
Illinois
Southern
District of
New York
Central
District of
California
Eastern
District of
Pennsylvania
Northern
District of
Ohio
Eastern
District of
New York
Eastern
District of
Wisconsin

10

23

271

30.3%

7

2.6%

24

28

198

46.2%

5

2.5%

7

21

242

25.0%

6

2.5%

27

22

405

55.1%

10

2.5%

25

54

600

31.6%

14

2.3%

9

27

366

25.0%

8

2.2%

18

54

514

25.0%

11

2.1%

29

109

987

21.0%

21

2.1%

7

54

457

11.5%

8

1.8%

47

97

1233

32.6%

20

1.6%

51

87

1018

37.0%

16

1.6%

125

219

2289

36.3%

35

1.5%

15

40

475

27.3%

7

1.5%

13

33

343

28.3%

4

1.2%

6

28

342

17.6%

3

0.9%

7

34

241

17.1%

2

0.8%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 13 of 37

14

AIPLA Q.J.

15

39

357

27.8%

2

0.6%

8

22

218

26.7%

1

0.5%

9

25

115

26.5%

0

0.0%

989

2054

Percentage
to Trial

0.8%

Cases to
Trial

3

Claimant
Win
Percentage

20.0%

TOTAL

392

Procedural

44

Claim
Defendant
Win

11

Claimant
Win

Western
District of
Washington
District of
Utah
Southern
District of
Ohio
District of
Columbia
TOTAL
OUTCOMES

Vol. 38:4

21667

32.5%

602

2.8%

These numbers seem more reflective of the conventional wisdom among
patent plaintiffs. While on average only 2.8% of patent cases go to trial, a far
higher percentage make it to trial in the District of Delaware, the Eastern District
of Texas, the Western District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Virginia.
With the exception of Delaware, all these are traditional patent plaintiff districts
of choice. By contrast, six districts send less than 1% of their cases to trial. One
might reasonably expect accused infringers to target those districts, though as
mentioned above, many are—apparently foolishly—sending their cases to
Delaware instead.
Finally, plaintiffs are frequently interested in speed. A speedy trial can
hold down costs and get a plaintiff quick relief. A speedy settlement can have
the same effect. Both can allow a patentee to build a war chest to sue other
defendants, and, in the case of trial, build the reputation of the patent.
Defendants’ incentives are less clear; defendants generally want to delay any day
of reckoning, and may think they can wear down a plaintiff in a long case, but
they too will probably pay more in legal fees in slow jurisdictions than in fast
ones. Table 5 ranks the district courts by their time to ultimate disposition of the
case.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 14 of 37

2010

15

Where to File Your Patent Case

Claim
Defendant
Win

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Time to
Resolution
(in years)

Western District of
Wisconsin

12

38

256

24.0%

0.56

Eastern District of
Virginia
Western District of
Washington

14

32

373

30.4%

0.64

11

44

392

20.0%

0.80

Southern District
of Florida
District of
Colorado
Middle District of
Florida
Central District of
California
Northern District
of Ohio
Northern District
of Illinois
Northern District
of Texas
Western District of
Texas
District of
Maryland
Northern District
of Georgia
Southern District
of California

25

65

478

27.8%

0.83

9

27

366

25.0%

0.88

25

29

429

46.3%

0.89

125

219

2289

36.3%

0.89

13

33

343

28.3%

0.91

47

97

1233

32.6%

0.95

27

22

405

55.1%

0.97

9

18

200

33.3%

0.98

7

21

242

25.0%

1.00

7

54

457

11.5%

1.02

21

56

519

27.3%

1.03

District of
Delaware
Southern District
of Texas
District of Utah

62

75

1017

45.3%

1.05

17

41

343

29.3%

1.06

15

39

357

27.8%

1.07

16

24

291

40.0%

1.07

District

Claimant Win

Table 5: Districts with 25 or More Outcomes, Sorted by Time to Resolution

Eastern District of
Missouri

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 15 of 37

16

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

District of Nevada

24

28

198

46.2%

1.09

Eastern District of
Michigan
Southern District
of New York

18

54

514

25.0%

1.10

51

87

1018

37.0%

1.12

Eastern District of
New York
District of
Columbia
District of New
Jersey
District of Oregon

6

28

342

17.6%

1.13

9

25

115

26.5%

1.14

29

109

987

21.0%

1.14

19

23

251

45.2%

1.14

District of
Minnesota
Eastern District of
Wisconsin

25

54

600

31.6%

1.18

7

34

241

17.1%

1.21

Eastern District of
Texas
Southern District
of Ohio
Northern District
of California

52

77

1024

40.3%

1.24

8

22

218

26.7%

1.28

56

159

1424

26.0%

1.28

District of Arizona

10

23

271

30.3%

1.28

District of
Massachusetts
Eastern District of
Pennsylvania

43

69

584

38.4%

1.29

15

40

475

27.3%

1.32

The differences here are not that dramatic.
Most districts take
approximately a year to resolve the average patent case. But there are some
notable—and well-known—“rocket dockets.” The Western District of Wisconsin
and the Eastern District of Virginia resolve the average case in just over six
months. The Western District of Washington and the Southern District of Florida
are not far behind. Interestingly, the Eastern District of Texas is among the
slowest jurisdictions, only slightly faster than the Northern District of California.
This is likely a function of congestion resulting from its popularity as a patent
forum; the sense in the bar in the early 2000s was that the Eastern District of

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 16 of 37

2010

17

Where to File Your Patent Case

Texas was a fast docket. 15 Here too your mileage may vary; if everyone moves to
a fast district, it can easily become a slow district as a result.
Related to time to resolution is time to trial. Table 6 ranks the districts by
time to trial.

15

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Cases to Trial

Percentage to
Trial

Time to Trial
(in years)

Western
District of
Wisconsin
Eastern District
of Virginia
Southern
District of
Florida
Middle District
of Florida
District of
Delaware
District of
Oregon
Eastern District
of Texas
Western
District of
Washington
District of
Maryland
Northern
District of
Texas
Southern
District of
Texas

Claim
Defendant
Win

District

Claimant Win

Table 6: Districts with 25 or More Outcomes, Sorted by Time to Trial

12

38

256

24.0%

19

7.4%

0.67

14

32

373

30.4%

24

6.4%

0.96

25

65

478

27.8%

21

4.4%

1.66

25

29

429

46.3%

17

4.0%

2.00

62

75

1017

45.3%

120

11.8%

2.03

19

23

251

45.2%

8

3.2%

2.07

52

77

1024

40.3%

82

8.0%

2.13

11

44

392

20.0%

3

0.8%

2.19

7

21

242

25.0%

6

2.5%

2.22

27

22

405

55.1%

10

2.5%

2.26

17

41

343

29.3%

12

3.5%

2.38

See, e.g., Alisha Kay Taylor, Comment, What Does Forum Shopping in the
Eastern District of Texas Mean for Patent Reform?, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL.
PROP. L. 570, 570 (2007).

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 17 of 37

18

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

District of
Nevada
Central District
of California
Southern
District of
California
Eastern District
of Missouri
Western
District of
Texas
Northern
District of
Illinois
Northern
District of Ohio
District of
Massachusetts
Southern
District of New
York
Northern
District of
California
District of
Arizona
District of
Minnesota
District of Utah

24

28

198

46.2%

5

2.5%

2.39

125

219

2289

36.3%

35

1.5%

2.47

21

56

519

27.3%

16

3.1%

2.48

16

24

291

40.0%

12

4.1%

2.52

9

18

200

33.3%

8

4.0%

2.52

47

97

1233

32.6%

20

1.6%

2.52

13

33

343

28.3%

4

1.2%

2.61

43

69

584

38.4%

36

6.2%

2.66

51

87

1018

37.0%

16

1.6%

2.85

56

159

1424

26.0%

44

3.1%

2.92

10

23

271

30.3%

7

2.6%

2.95

25

54

600

31.6%

14

2.3%

2.96

15

39

357

27.8%

2

0.6%

2.99

District of New
Jersey
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania

29

109

987

21.0%

21

2.1%

3.06

15

40

475

27.3%

7

1.5%

3.09

Northern
District of
Georgia
District of
Colorado
Eastern District
of New York
Southern
District of Ohio

7

54

457

11.5%

8

1.8%

3.10

9

27

366

25.0%

8

2.2%

3.19

6

28

342

17.6%

3

0.9%

3.28

8

22

218

26.7%

1

0.5%

3.30

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 18 of 37

2010

19

Where to File Your Patent Case

Eastern District
of Michigan
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

18

54

514

25.0%

11

2.1%

3.41

7

34

241

17.1%

2

0.8%

3.51

District of
Columbia

9

25

115

26.5%

0

0.0%

n/a

Not surprisingly, there are some similarities between time to resolution
and time to trial, though the average time to trial is much longer than the average
resolution, reflecting the prevalence of early settlements. The Western District of
Wisconsin and the Eastern District of Virginia are truly rocket dockets; in those
districts the average patent trial was completed less than a year after the case was
filed. Notably, however, districts that are among the slowest to total resolution,
including the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California,
are much faster than others when it comes to bringing cases to trial.
What is notable about all these measures is that no district court stands
out as the best for plaintiffs or defendants on every measure. In other words,
parties that want to forum shop must make tradeoffs.
To facilitate those tradeoffs, the following tables rank the districts by
their aggregate standing on each of the possible measures: patentee win rate, the
percentage of cases to trial, the time to resolution, and the time to trial. Table 7
presents a simple aggregate ranking, adding the rank of each district on each of
the four measures. The lower the aggregate ranking number, the better the
district is for patent plaintiffs; the higher the aggregate ranking, the better the

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 19 of 37

20

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

district is for accused infringers. The magnitude of the numeric differences gives
a coarse indication of how much more desirable one district is than another. 16

16

Time to
Resolution
Ranking

Time to Trial
Ranking

Aggregate
Ranking

Middle District
of Florida
Eastern District
of Virginia
District of
Delaware
Southern
District of
Florida
Western District
of Wisconsin
Northern
District of Texas
Eastern District
of Texas
Western District
of Texas
District of

Percent to Trial
Ranking

District

Claimant Win
Percentage
Ranking

Table 7: Aggregate Ranking of Districts

2

9

6

4

21

14

4

2

2

22

4

1

15

5

25

18

6

4

3

31

28

3

1

1

33

1

17

10

10

38

6

2

28

7

43

11

8

11

16

46

5

11

25

6

47

I ran a more sophisticated approach that compared the ratio of each district
on each measure to the mean for that measure. That allows me to test the
effect of the size of the difference between each district on the various
measures. Doing so required inverting the ratio for the time to resolution and
time to trial results, as lower numbers were desirable there. I have not
reprinted the analysis because I think it distorts the results in favor of districts
that happen to be outliers on measures with higher standard deviation
(specifically, percentage to trial and time to trial), and creates other anomalies
as well. For those nonetheless interested, the most favorable patentee
jurisdictions on that analysis were the Western District of Wisconsin, the
Eastern District of Virginia, the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of
Texas, and the Middle District of Florida. The jurisdictions most favorable to
accused infringers were the District of the District of Columbia, the Southern
District of Ohio, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Eastern District of New
York, and the District of Utah.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 20 of 37

2010

21

Where to File Your Patent Case

Oregon
Eastern District
of Missouri
District of
Nevada
Southern
District of Texas
Central District
of California
Northern
District of
Illinois
Southern
District of
California
District of
Maryland
District of
Massachusetts
Northern
District of Ohio
Western District
of Washington
Southern
District of New
York
District of
Colorado
District of
Minnesota
District of
Arizona
Northern
District of
California
District of Utah
Northern
District of
Georgia
Eastern District
of Michigan
District of New
Jersey

7

7

18

15

47

3

15

19

12

49

16

10

16

11

53

10

25

7

13

55

12

23

9

17

61

20

13

14

14

61

25

16

12

9

62

8

5

32

19

64

17

27

8

18

70

30

30

3

8

71

9

24

21

20

74

26

19

5

28

78

13

18

26

23

80

15

14

31

22

82

24

12

30

21

87

19

31

17

24

91

33

22

13

27

95

27

20

20

31

98

29

21

24

25

99

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 21 of 37

22

AIPLA Q.J.

Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
Eastern District
of New York
District of
Columbia
Southern
District of Ohio
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

Vol. 38:4

21

26

33

26

106

31

28

22

29

110

23

33

23

33

112

22

32

29

30

113

32

29

27

32

120

The best aggregate patent district for plaintiffs is, surprisingly, the
Middle District of Florida. As shown in Table 7 above, it is the only district that
is in the top ten in every measure, with a ranking of two for claimant win
percentage, nine for percentage of claims to trial, six for time to resolution, and
four for time to trial. The other jurisdictions in the top five are somewhat less of
a surprise: the Eastern District of Virginia, the District of Delaware, the Southern
District of Florida, and the Western District of Wisconsin. What is surprising is
that the Eastern District of Texas isn’t in the five best districts for patent
plaintiffs. On the accused infringer side, the most favorable jurisdictions are the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Ohio, the District of
Columbia, the Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Aggregating rankings is, of course, a crude measure of how favorable a
district is likely to be. Depending on a party’s preferences, some of these districts
might not look so favorable. For example, one of the top plaintiff’s jurisdictions,
the Western District of Wisconsin, actually ranks near the bottom in terms of
patentee win rate. A patentee more concerned with winning than with speed
would presumably not want to sue there. To account for these different
preferences, Table 8 double counts the role of outcomes to present a rank
ordering for an outcome-oriented plaintiff. The results do not change that much;
the Northern District of Texas appears in the top five plaintiff jurisdictions,
replacing the Western District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Texas
edges into the top five in a tie for fifth place. The District of New Jersey edges
out the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a prime jurisdiction for accused
infringers.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 22 of 37

2010

23

Where to File Your Patent Case

Time to
Resolution
Ranking

Time to Trial
Ranking

Aggregate
Ranking
Weighted to
Outcomes

Middle District
of Florida
District of
Delaware
Eastern District
of Virginia
Northern
District of Texas
Southern
District of
Florida
Eastern District
of Texas
District of
Oregon
District of
Nevada
Eastern District
of Missouri
Western District
of Texas
Western District
of Wisconsin
Central District
of California
Southern
District of Texas
District of
Massachusetts
Northern
District of
Illinois
Southern
District of
California
Southern
District of New

Percent to Trial
Ranking

District

Claimant Win
Percentage
Ranking

Table 8: Outcome-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More Outcomes

2

9

6

4

23

4

1

15

5

29

14

4

2

2

36

1

17

10

10

39

18

6

4

3

49

6

2

28

7

49

5

11

25

6

52

3

15

19

12

52

7

7

18

15

54

11

8

11

16

57

28

3

1

1

61

10

25

7

13

65

16

10

16

11

69

8

5

32

19

72

12

23

9

17

73

20

13

14

14

81

9

24

21

20

83

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 23 of 37

24

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

York
District of
Maryland
Northern
District of Ohio
District of
Minnesota
District of
Arizona
Western District
of Washington
District of
Colorado
District of Utah
Northern
District of
California
Eastern District
of Michigan
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
Northern
District of
Georgia
District of New
Jersey
District of
Columbia
Southern
District of Ohio
Eastern District
of New York
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

25

16

12

9

87

17

27

8

18

87

13

18

26

23

93

15

14

31

22

97

30

30

3

8

101

26

19

5

28

104

19

31

17

24

110

24

12

30

21

111

27

20

20

31

125

21

26

33

26

127

33

22

13

27

128

29

21

24

25

128

23

33

23

33

135

22

32

29

30

135

31

28

22

29

141

32

29

27

32

152

Perhaps plaintiffs have other preferences. Table 9 shows the ranking for
a plaintiff particularly interested in getting to trial, double-counting both the
percentage of cases that go to trial and the time to trial. The order of the top five
patentee jurisdictions changes, with the Eastern District of Virginia topping the
list, but the top five stay the same. The same is true of the top five accused
infringer jurisdictions.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 24 of 37

2010

25

Where to File Your Patent Case

Time to
Resolution
Ranking

Time to Trial
Ranking

Aggregate
Ranking
Weighted to
Trials

Eastern District
of Virginia
District of
Delaware
Middle District
of Florida
Western District
of Wisconsin
Southern
District of
Florida
Eastern District
of Texas
District of
Oregon
Northern
District of Texas
Eastern District
of Missouri
Western District
of Texas
Southern
District of Texas
District of
Nevada
District of
Maryland
District of
Massachusetts
Southern
District of
California
Central District
of California
Northern
District of

Percent to Trial
Ranking

District

Claimant Win
Percentage
Ranking

Table 9: Trial-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More Outcomes

14

4

2

2

28

4

1

15

5

31

2

9

6

4

34

28

3

1

1

37

18

6

4

3

40

6

2

28

7

52

5

11

25

6

64

1

17

10

10

65

7

7

18

15

69

11

8

11

16

70

16

10

16

11

74

3

15

19

12

76

25

16

12

9

87

8

5

32

19

88

20

13

14

14

88

10

25

7

13

93

12

23

9

17

101

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 25 of 37

26

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

Illinois
Western District
of Washington
Northern
District of Ohio
Southern
District of New
York
District of
Arizona
Northern
District of
California
District of
Minnesota
District of
Colorado
Northern
District of
Georgia
District of New
Jersey
District of Utah
Eastern District
of Michigan
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
Eastern District
of New York
Southern
District of Ohio
District of
Columbia
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

30

30

3

8

109

17

27

8

18

115

9

24

21

20

118

15

14

31

22

118

24

12

30

21

120

13

18

26

23

121

26

19

5

28

125

33

22

13

27

144

29

21

24

25

145

19

31

17

24

146

27

20

20

31

149

21

26

33

26

158

31

28

22

29

167

22

32

29

30

175

23

33

23

33

178

32

29

27

32

181

Finally, Table 10 shows the results for a plaintiff interested only in speed,
double-weighting time to resolution and time to trial. Once again the top five
districts for both patentees and accused infringers change their order but remain
the same. Notably, by this measure the Eastern District of Texas drops to ninth
place, behind the Central District of California.

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 26 of 37

2010

27

Where to File Your Patent Case

Time to Trial
Ranking

Aggregate
Outcome
Weighted to
Speed

District of
Delaware
Northern
District of Texas
Western District
of Texas
Central District
of California
Eastern District
of Texas
District of
Oregon
Eastern District
of Missouri
Southern
District of Texas
District of
Nevada
Western District
of Washington
District of
Maryland
Northern
District of
Illinois
Southern
District of

Time to
Resolution
Ranking

Eastern District
of Virginia
Middle District
of Florida
Western District
of Wisconsin
Southern
District of
Florida

Percent to
Trial Ranking

District

Claimant Win
Percentage
Ranking

Table 10: Speed-Emphasis Ranking of Districts with 25 or More Outcomes

14

4

2

2

26

2

9

6

4

31

28

3

1

1

35

18

6

4

3

38

4

1

15

5

45

1

17

10

10

58

11

8

11

16

73

10

25

7

13

75

6

2

28

7

78

5

11

25

6

78

7

7

18

15

80

16

10

16

11

80

3

15

19

12

80

30

30

3

8

82

25

16

12

9

83

12

23

9

17

87

20

13

14

14

89

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 27 of 37

28

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

California
Northern
District of Ohio
District of
Colorado
District of
Massachusetts
Southern
District of New
York
District of
Minnesota
District of Utah

17

27

8

18

96

26

19

5

28

111

8

5

32

19

115

9

24

21

20

115

13

18

26

23

129

19

31

17

24

132

District of
Arizona
Northern
District of
Georgia
Northern
District of
California
District of New
Jersey
Eastern District
of Michigan
Eastern District
of New York
Eastern District
of Pennsylvania
District of
Columbia
Southern
District of Ohio
Eastern District
of Wisconsin

15

14

31

22

135

33

22

13

27

135

24

12

30

21

138

29

21

24

25

148

27

20

20

31

149

31

28

22

29

161

21

26

33

26

165

23

33

23

33

168

22

32

29

30

172

32

29

27

32

179

The results, in short, seem fairly stable across a variety of likely
preferences, and they reflect received wisdom only in part. Accused infringers
should be trying to litigate in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern
District of Ohio, or the District of Columbia, none of which are currently on the
radar screen of most patent lawyers. Patentees should be suing in a variety of
districts, including the District of Delaware, the Eastern District of Virginia, and

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 28 of 37

2010

Where to File Your Patent Case

29

the Western District of Wisconsin. Virginia and Wisconsin aren’t much of a
surprise, but patent lawyers seem to overvalue the Eastern District of Texas and
undervalue the District of Delaware. 17 And as for the best—and least
appreciated—jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs? Let’s put it this way:
Q: “Mark, you’ve just completed an exhaustive study of where to file
your patent suit. What are you going to do now?”
A: “I’m going to Disney World.”

17

But cf. John E. Kidd & Keeto H. Sabharwal, The District of Delaware: An Ideal
Venue for Patent Litigators, 18 DEL. LAW. 16, 17 (2000) (explaining why the
Delaware District court is an ideal venue for patent plaintiffs).

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 29 of 37

30

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

Appendix A
Patent Litigation Outcomes by Court
Court

Outcomes
Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

First Circuit

District of
Maine

0

3

1

0

19

2

25

0.0%

District of
Massachusetts

43

69

41

1

392

38

584

38.4%

District of New
Hampshire

5

11

6

0

45

6

73

31.3%

District of
Rhode Island

5

6

5

0

38

4

58

45.5%

District of
Puerto Rico

0

2

3

0

4

1

10

0.0%

Subtotal

53

91

56

1

498

51

750

36.8%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Second Circuit

District of
Connecticut

4

17

21

0

209

27

278

19.0%

Northern
District of New
York

4

2

4

0

76

7

93

66.7%

Eastern District
of New York

6

28

29

0

245

34

342

17.6%

Southern
District of New
York
Western
District of New
York

51

87

87

1

676

116

1018

37.0%

4

10

17

0

122

10

163

28.6%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 30 of 37

2010

31

Where to File Your Patent Case

District of
Vermont
Subtotal

1

0

3

0

18

1

23

100.0%

70

144

161

1

1346

195

1917

32.7%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Third Circuit

District of
Delaware

62

75

137

0

682

61

1017

45.3%

District of New
Jersey

29

109

201

0

588

60

987

21.0%

Eastern District
of Pennsylvania

15

40

42

3

342

33

475

27.3%

Middle District
of Pennsylvania

6

1

5

1

33

8

54

85.7%

Western
District of
Pennsylvania

5

18

21

0

123

14

181

21.7%

District of
Virgin Islands

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

N/A

Subtotal

117

243

406

4

1768

176

2714

32.5%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Fourth Circuit

District of
Maryland

7

21

40

0

161

13

242

25.0%

Eastern District
of North
Carolina
Middle District
of North
Carolina

3

8

3

0

47

11

72

27.3%

6

10

5

0

106

23

150

37.5%

Western
District of
North Carolina

5

7

9

0

117

15

153

41.7%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 31 of 37

32

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

District of
South Carolina
Eastern District
of Virginia
Western
District of
Virginia
Northern
District of West
Virginia

5

15

11

0

88

12

131

25.0%

14

32

69

1

229

28

373

30.4%

2

6

4

0

31

1

44

25.0%

2

1

6

0

16

4

29

66.7%

Southern
District of West
Virginia
Subtotal

0

2

1

0

4

0

7

0.0%

44

102

148

1

799

107

1201

30.1%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Fifth Circuit

Western
District of
Louisiana

2

5

4

0

39

3

53

28.6%

Northern
District of
Mississippi
Southern
District of
Mississippi
Northern
District of
Texas

0

1

3

0

6

1

11

0.0%

0

5

4

0

5

2

16

0.0%

27

22

55

0

283

18

405

55.1%

Eastern District
of Texas

52

77

150

0

703

42

1024

40.3%

Southern
District of
Texas
Western
District of
Texas
Eastern District
of Louisiana

17

41

51

2

214

18

343

29.3%

9

18

17

0

151

5

200

33.3%

3

1

17

0

53

13

87

75.0%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 32 of 37

2010

33

Where to File Your Patent Case

Middle District
of Louisiana

0

0

4

0

13

0

17

N/A

Subtotal

110

170

305

2

1467

102

2156

39.3%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Sixth Circuit

Eastern District
of Kentucky
Western
District of
Kentucky
Eastern District
of Michigan

2

5

6

0

29

2

44

28.6%

2

1

1

0

40

3

47

66.7%

18

54

34

0

378

30

514

25.0%

Western
District of
Michigan
Northern
District of Ohio

6

15

9

0

110

12

152

28.6%

13

33

14

0

268

15

343

28.3%

Southern
District of Ohio

8

22

23

0

149

16

218

26.7%

Eastern District
of Tennessee

3

3

4

0

33

3

46

50.0%

Middle District
of Tennessee

5

7

7

1

43

2

65

41.7%

Western
District of
Tennessee
Subtotal

5

4

9

0

33

14

65

55.6%

62

144

107

1

1083

97

1494

30.1%

Claimant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Northern
District of
Illinois

Claim
Defendant Win

Seventh Circuit

47

97

119

3

874

93

1233

32.6%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 33 of 37

34

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

Central District
of Illinois

6

4

2

0

37

8

57

60.0%

Southern
District of
Illinois
Northern
District of
Indiana
Southern
District of
Indiana
Eastern District
of Wisconsin
Western
District of
Wisconsin
Subtotal

0

2

3

0

14

4

23

0.0%

0

9

7

0

72

13

101

0.0%

7

7

22

0

106

10

152

50.0%

7

34

21

0

162

17

241

17.1%

12

38

31

2

155

18

256

24.0%

79

191

205

5

1420

163

2063

29.3%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Eighth Circuit

Eastern District
of Arkansas
Western
District of
Arkansas
Northern
District of Iowa
Southern
District of Iowa
District of
Minnesota
Eastern District
of Missouri
Western
District of
Missouri
District of
Nebraska

3

3

1

0

14

10

31

50.0%

1

2

1

0

14

3

21

33.3%

3

2

0

0

17

1

23

60.0%

7

7

2

0

52

10

78

50.0%

25

54

28

0

450

43

600

31.6%

16

24

26

0

170

55

291

40.0%

5

12

3

0

69

8

97

29.4%

2

7

3

0

47

5

64

22.2%

District of
North Dakota

1

2

4

0

13

1

21

33.3%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 34 of 37

2010

35

Where to File Your Patent Case

District of
South Dakota
Subtotal

0

0

0

0

9

2

11

N/A

63

113

68

0

855

138

1237

35.8%

Claimant Win

Claim
Defendant Win

Procedural

Indeterminate

Likely
Settlement

Consent
Judgment

TOTAL

Claimant Win
Percentage

Ninth Circuit

District of
Arizona
Northern
District of
California
Eastern District
of California

10

23

28

0

193

17

271

30.3%

56

159

131

0

1007

71

1424

26.0%

8

16

6

2

64

8

104

33.3%

Central District
of California
Southern
District of
California
District of
Hawaii
District of
Idaho
District of
Montana
District of
Nevada
District of
Oregon
Eastern District
of Washington

125

219

193

11

1401

340

2289

36.3%

21

56

24

1

380

37

519

27.3%

4

3

1

0

17

9

34

57.1%

6

3

0

0

28

3

40

66.7%

2

2

2

1

10

1

18

50.0%

24

28

15

0

117

14

198

46.2%

19

23

8

0

160

41

251

45.2%

0

12

4

0

35

7

58

0.0%

Western
District of
Washington
District of
Guam

11

44

56

0

248

33

392

20.0%

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

N/A

District of
Northern
Mariana
Islands

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

N/A

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 35 of 37

36

AIPLA Q.J.

Vol. 38:4

District of
Alaska

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

N/A

Subtotal

286

588

469

15

3661

581

5600

32.7%

Claimant Win
Percentage

366

25.0%

2

6

6

0

62

8

84

25.0%

2

2

3

0

12

0

19

50.0%

1

1

2

0

33

2

39

50.0%

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

0.0%

3

12

3

0

34

5

57

20.0%

15

39

34

2

247

20

357

27.8%

District of
Wyoming
Subtotal

0

1

0

0

10

1

12

0.0%

32

89

77

2

683

53

936

26.4%

Eleventh
Circuit

Northern
District of
Alabama
Middle District
of Alabama
Southern
District of
Alabama

Claimant Win
Percentage

TOTAL

17

TOTAL

Consent
Judgment

285

Consent
Judgment

Likely
Settlement

0

Likely
Settlement

Indeterminate

28

Indeterminate

Procedural

27

Procedural

Claim Defendant
Win

9

Claim
Defendant Win

District of
Colorado
District of
Kansas
District of New
Mexico
Northern
District of
Oklahoma
Eastern District
of Oklahoma
Western
District of
Oklahoma
District of Utah

Claimant Win

Claimant Win

Tenth Circuit

2

2

6

0

27

9

46

50.0%

0

0

0

0

6

0

6

N/A

1

2

1

1

6

0

11

33.3%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 36 of 37

2010

37

Where to File Your Patent Case

Northern
District of
Florida
Middle District
of Florida
Southern
District of
Florida
Northern
District of
Georgia
Middle District
of Georgia

1

1

3

0

19

3

27

50.0%

25

29

49

2

277

47

429

46.3%

25

65

71

1

282

34

478

27.8%

7

54

69

1

265

61

457

11.5%

2

0

2

0

14

1

19

100.0%

Southern
District of
Georgia
Subtotal

1

1

1

0

7

1

11

50.0%

64

154

202

5

903

156

1484

29.4%
Claimant Win
Percentage

115

26.5%

Subtotal

9

25

19

0

59

3

115

26.5%

TOTAL
OUTCOMES

Claimant Win
Percentage

TOTAL

3

TOTAL

Consent
Judgment

59

Consent
Judgment

Likely
Settlement

0

Likely
Settlement

Indeterminate

19

Indeterminate

Procedural

25

Procedural

Claim
Defendant Win

9

Claim
Defendant Win

District of
Columbia

Claimant Win

Claimant Win

District of
Columbia
Circuit

989

2054

2223

37

14542

1822

21667

32.5%

EX D to the Declaration to the Declaration of Anne E. Huffsmith in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Page 37 of 37