Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 72

RESPONSE (re 67 MOTION to Transfer Case or, in the Alternative to Stay ) Opposition of Google Inc. to Rockstar's Renewed Motion to Transfer or Stay This Action filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kristin J. Madigan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18)(Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 5/23/2014)

EXHIBIT 17

Owen Byrd

Chief Evangelist & General Counsel

Brian Howard

Legal Data Scientist

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Introduction
The world of U.S. patent litigation has
changed dramatically in the last five years:
total patent cases filed in district courts have
more than doubled since 2008, the American
Invents Act was passed in 2011 and took effect
in 2012, and cases such as Apple-Samsung
have captured headlines with eye-popping
damages awards for patent infringement in
widely used products.
This report draws on Lex Machina’s unique
and rich Legal Analytics data on U.S. District
Courts and judges, law firms, parties, patents,
case merits decisions, damages awards,
and International Trade Commission (ITC)
investigations and Administrative Law
Judges (ALJs).

Executive Summary
Plaintiffs filed 6,092 new patent cases in U.S. District Courts in 2013, compared
to 5,418 new cases filed in 2012, a 12.4% increase.
A plurality of these new cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas (1,495
cases, 20% increase over 2012) and the District of Delaware (1,336 cases, 33%
increase over 2012). The Central District of California saw the greatest decrease
in new cases filed (399 cases, 20% decrease over 2012).
Trials were held in 128 patent cases in 2013, including 52 bench trials and 63 jury
trials. Thirteen cases involved both bench and jury trials. Over half of all trials
were held in the District of Delaware (25), the Eastern District of Texas (25) or
the Southern District of New York (17). Cases went to trial fastest in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; its 255-day median time to trial was approximately
12 times faster than the 2,423 days it took a case to get to trial in the Western
District of New York, the slowest district.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas was assigned 941 new
patent cases in 2013, far outpacing the 399 cases assigned to his Delaware
colleague Judge Leonard Stark, who ranked second.
Seven judges issued more than ten decisions on the merits of patent cases.
Judge Gilstrap, along with District of Delaware Judges Richard Andrews and
Sue Robinson, each issued 15 decisions. Seven other judges each issued four or
five summary judgment decisions.
Fish & Richardson, with 308 cases, led all national law firms when ranked by
number of open cases in 2013 (filed 2009-2013). Morris, Nichols, Arsht &
Tunnell led all Delaware firms, with 604 open cases in 2013. Ward & Smith
led all Texas firms, with 245 open cases.
Not surprisingly, all ten plaintiffs that filed the most new patent cases in 2013 are
patent monetization entities (PMEs). Melvino/ArrivalStar, Wyncomm and
Thermolife each filed more than 100 cases. But seven of the ten plaintiffs with
the most patents asserted in open cases are operating companies, including
Ericsson, Finisar, Motorola Mobility, Apple, Philips and Pfizer.

i

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

The top defendant named in cases filed in 2013 was Apple (59 cases), followed by
Amazon (50 cases). Other tech companies, including AT&T (45 cases), Google
(39 cases), Dell (38 cases), HTC (38 cases), Samsung (38 cases); Microsoft (35 cases),
LG (34 cases), and HP (34 cases), rounded out the top ten.
PMEs ArrivalStar and Melvino jointly asserted six of the ten most frequently asserted
patents, all involving systems for monitoring or tracking vehicle status, travel or
proximity.
4,917 patents were at issue in all cases filed during 2013. Of these, 3,032, or 61%,
had not been litigated in the past 10 years.
The number of merits decisions by district courts invalidating patents under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, for lack of patentable subject matter, continued to increase, from two in 2010
to 14 in 2013.
The 10 largest damages awards ranged from $1 billion, to Monsanto from DuPont
for infringement of a patent for genetically modified seeds, to just over $15 million,
to Tomita from Nintendo for infringement of a video camera image system.
Damages generally increased from 2012 to 2013, although headline-stealing damages
caused the average damages to increase more (28%) than the median damages (22%).
Finally, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) remains an important venue
for resolving patent disputes. Total new ITC investigations in 2013 stabilized at 41,
almost identical to 2012’s 42 new investigations, after spiking to 70 in 2011.
Of the six currently-serving ITC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), Charles Bullock
has disposed of the largest number of investigations, 125 in total. Theodore Essex has
resolved 86 investigations, Edwards Gildea has resolved 57, David Shaw has resolved 29,
Thomas Pender has resolved 23, and Sandra Lord has resolved three.

ii

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Table of Contents:
New Cases Filed in U.S. District Courts

Figure 1:
Figure 2:

1

New Cases Filed in 2013, by Month....................................................... 1
New Cases Filed 2005-2013.................................................................. 1

U.S. District Courts

2

New Cases, by District..................................................................................................... 2

Figure 3: Districts With Most New Cases Filed....................................................... 2
Net Change in New Cases Filed, by District................................................................... 2

Figure 4: Net Increase in New Cases Filed.............................................................. 2 .
Figure 5: Net Decrease in New Cases Filed............................................................. 2
Bench and Jury Trials....................................................................................................... 3

Figure 6: All Trials, All Districts............................................................................ 3
Figure 7: Trials, by District (districts with more than two trials)............................. 3
Time to Trial .............................................................................................................. 4

Figure 8: Fastest Median Time to Trial, 2013........................................................ 4
Figure 9: Fastest Median Time to Trial, 2012........................................................ 4
Figure 10: Slowest Median Time to Trial, 2013....................................................... 4
Figure 11: Slowest Median Time to Trial, 2012....................................................... 4
Figure 12: Average Time to Trial, by Year and Quarter of Trial Date........................ 5
U.S. District Court Judges

6

New Cases
.............................................................................................................. 6

Figure 13: Most New Cases..................................................................................... 6
Merits Decisions ............................................................................................................. 6
.

Figure 14: Most Merits Decisions............................................................................. 6
Summary Judgment Decisions........................................................................................ 6
Figure 15: Most Summary Judgment Decisions........................................................ 6
Law Firms
Figure 16:

Figure 17:

Figure 18:

7
National Law Firms, Ranked by Open Cases in 2013
(Filed 2009-2013)................................................................................. 7
Delaware Law Firms, Ranked by Open Cases in 2013
(Filed 2009-2013)................................................................................. 7
Texas Law Firms , Ranked by Open Cases in 2013
(Filed 2009-2013)................................................................................. 7

Parties 8
Figure 19:
Figure 20:

Figure 21:

Plaintiffs Filing Most New Cases............................................................. 8
Plaintiffs With Most Patents Asserted in
Cases Open During 2013....................................................................... 8
Defendants in Most New Cases............................................................... 8

Patents 9

Figure 22: Most Frequently Asserted Patents............................................................. 9
Figure 23: Titles of Most Frequently Asserted Patents................................................ 9

Merits Decisions in District Court Cases

10

Figure 24: Patent Invalidity Merits Decisions 2007-2013...................................... 10
Figure 25: Merit Decisions for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter

(35 U.S.C. § 101) 2007-2013............................................................ 11
District Court Damages Awards

12

Figure 26: Largest Damages Awards...................................................................... 12
Figure 27: Average and Median Damages, 2013 v. 2012....................................... 12
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)

13

Figure 28: New ITC Investigations Filed, 2007-2013........................................... 13
Figure 29: All Dispositive Outcomes by Current ALJs, through 2013...................... 13
Figure 30: Pending Investigations, by current ALJ.................................................. 13
Lex Machina’s Data

14

Appendix 1: All Pending ITC Investigations, as of December 31, 2013

15

iii

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

New Cases Filed in U.S. District Courts

Plaintiffs filed 6,092 new patent cases in U.S. District Courts in 2013,
compared to 5,418 new cases filed in 2012, a 12.4% increase.
Figure 1: New Cases Filed in 2013, by Month
597

600

578
552

547

550

516

514

500

502

490

483

484

450
428

Number of Cases

400

401

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
January

Febuary

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month case filed (2013)

Figure 2:

New Cases Filed, 2005-2013
597

600

578
550

532

500
484
450
428

Number of Cases

400

401
353

350

339
305

300
278

266

255

250

246

200
191
161

150

171

170

167

161

100

50

AIA takes effect

0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Month case filed

2011

2012

2013

2014

1

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

U.S. District Courts
New Cases, by District
Figure 3: Districts With Most New Cases Filed
Rank

District

2013

2012

Net Change

1

Eastern District of Texas

1,495 1,247 +248

2

District of Delaware

1,336 1,002 +334

3

Central District of California

399

4

Northern District of California

249 260 -11

5

Southern District of California

227 141 +86

499 -100

The first four of the top five districts with the most new cases filed remained the same
from 2012 to 2013. The Southern District of California (227 cases in 2013, 141 cases
in 2012, with a net change +86) overtook the Northern District of Illinois as the fifth
most popular district for new cases filed.
Total new cases filed increased for the Eastern District of Texas (1), the District of
Delaware (2), and the Southern District of California (5), but decreased for the Central
District of California (3) and Northern District of California (4).
Net Change in New Cases Filed, by District
Figure 4:

Net Increase in New Cases Filed

Rank

District

2013

2012

1

District of Delaware

1,336

1,002

+334 33%

2

Eastern District of Texas

1,495

1,247

+248 20%

3

Southern District of California

227

141

+86 61%

4

Southern District of Florida

185

133

+52 39%

5

District of Massachusetts

124

80

+44 55%

2013

2012

Figure 5:

Net Increase

Net Increase (%)

Net Decrease in New Cases Filed

Rank

District

Net Decrease

Net Decrease (%)

1

Central District of California

399

499

-100 20%

2

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

23

53

-30 57%

3

District of Maryland

21

42

-21 50%

4

Western District of Pennsylvania

19

39

-20 51%

5

Middle District of Florida

59

76

-17 22%

The District of Delaware experienced the largest increase in case filings, with 334 more
cases filed in 2013 than in 2012. The Eastern District of Texas also experienced a surge,
with 248 more cases filed in 2013 than 2012.
The Central District of California experienced the largest decrease in case filings,
with 100 fewer cases filed in 2013 than 2012, a 20% drop.

2

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Bench and Jury Trials
Figure 6:

All Trials, All Districts

Bench
52

Jury

Bench & Jury*

63

Total

13 128

Figure 7: Trials, by District (districts with more than two trials)
District

Bench

Jury

Bench & Jury

Total

District of Delaware

17

8

0

25

Eastern District of Texas

11

22

8

25

Southern District of New York

11

7

1

17

Northern District of California

4

6

1

9

District of New Jersey

6

1

0

7

Central District of California

3

3

1

5

Northern District of Texas

2

4

2

4

District of Massachusetts

0

3

0

3

Middle District of Florida

0

3

0

3

Southern District of Florida

2

0

0

2

Northern District of Illinois

1

1

0

2

Southern District of Indiana

1

1

0

2

Western District of Texas

0

2

0

2

106

* Cases in which at least a portion of both bench and jury trails occurred in 2013.

3

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Time to Trial
Figure 8: Fastest Median Time to Trial, 2013
Rank

District

Cases

Median Days

1

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

1

212

2

Southern District of Florida

2

401

3

Western District of Virginia

1

587

4

Eastern District of Texas

24

677

5

Eastern District of Missouri

1

714

Cases

Median Days

Figure 9: Fastest Median Time to Trial, 2012
Rank

District

1

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

2

255

2

Eastern District of Virginia

3

459

3

Northern District of Ohio

1

560

4

Central District of California

4

582

5

Middle District of Florida

4

616

Cases

Median Days

Figure 10: Slowest Median Time to Trial, 2013
Rank

District

1

Western District of New York

1

2,423

2

Eastern District of Louisiana

1

2,308

3

Eastern District of California

1

2,044

4

Southern District of Iowa

1

1,642

5

District of Utah

1

1,532

Cases

Median Days

Figure 11: Slowest Median Time to Trial, 2012
Rank

District

1

District of Connecticut

1

3,052

2

District of Nevada

1

2,064

3

Eastern District of Louisiana

1

1,852

4

Northern District of Alabama

1

1,504

5

Western District of Pennsylvania

2

1,293

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania led all districts with the fastest time to trial in
both 2013 and 2012. In 2013, its 255-day median time to trial was approximately 12
times faster than the 2,423 days to trial in the Western District of New York, the slowest
district.

4

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Figure 12: verage Time to Trial, by Year and Quarter of Trial Date
A

1,217
1200

1,193

1,172
1,135

1,130
1,093

1100
1,023

1,042
978

1000
986

976

969

962

967
963

900
986

986

965
931

897
894

891
829

800

Avg. Time to Trial

1,027
972

808
812
767

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Jan 1, 07

Jul 1, 07

Jan 1, 08

Jul 1, 08

Jan 1, 09

Jul 1, 09

Jan 1, 10

Jul 1, 10

Jan 1, 11

Jul 1, 11

Jan 1, 12

Jul 1, 12

Jan 1, 13

Jul 1, 13

Quarter in which trial was held

Time to trial, by the date of trial, is not correlated with the volume of cases filed,
seasonal variations, or other discernable trends.

Jan 1, 14

5

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

U.S. District Court Judges
New Cases
Figure 13: Most New Cases
Rank Judge

District

Cases

1

Rodney Gilstrap

Eastern District of Texas

941

2

Leonard Stark

District of Delaware

399

3

Gregory Sleet

District of Delaware

395

4

Richard Andrews

District of Delaware

371

5

Leonard Davis

Eastern District of Texas

263

6

Sue Robinson

District of Delaware

248

7

Michael Schneider

Eastern District of Texas

186

8

Janis Sammartino

Southern District of California

104

9

Marilyn Huff

Southern District of California

75

10

Kevin Moore

Southern District of Florida

63

Merits Decisions
Figure 14: Most Merits Decisions*
Rank Judge

District

Decisions

1

Richard Andrews

District of Delaware

15

2

Rodney Gilstrap

Eastern District of Texas

15

3

Sue Robinson

District of Delaware

15

4

Leonard Davis

Eastern District of Texas

13

5

Leonard Stark

District of Delaware

12

6

Susan Illston

Northern District of California

12

7

Sidney Stein

Southern District of New York

11

Summary Judgment Decisions
Figure 15: Most Summary Judgment Decisions
Rank Judge

District

1

Mariana Pfaelzer

Central District of California

5

2

Sue Robinson

District of Delaware

5

3

John Darrah

Northern District of Illinois

5

4

Susan Illston

Northern District of California

5

5

Leonard Davis

Eastern District of Texas

4

6

Richard Seeborg

Northern District of California

4

7

Ronald Whyte

Northern District of California

4

* Merits decisions exclude stipulated, vountary, or agreed dismissals, as well as transfer,
severance or consolidation terminations.

Decisions

6

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Law Firms
Figure 16: National Law Firms, Ranked by Open Cases in 2013 (Filed 2009-2013)
Rank

Firm

Open Cases

Total Cases

1

Fish & Richardson

308

1,027

2

Farney Daniels

216

590

3

DLA Piper

188

599

4

Winston & Strawn

165

477

5

Kirkland & Ellis

154

498

6

Perkins Coie

150

501

7

Finnegan Henderson

141

398

8

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

136

436

9

Cooley Godward Kronish

135

384

10

McCarter & English

133

384

Figure 17: Delaware Law Firms, Ranked by Open Cases in 2013 (Filed 2009-2013)
Rank

Firm

Open Cases

1

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell

604

Total Cases
1,369

2 Bayard

390

794

3

277

828

4 Farnan

270

585

5

270

679

Stamoulis & Weinblatt
Potter Anderson & Corroon

The top five Delaware law firms all have more open cases than the top five national
firms except Fish & Richardson.
Figure 18: Texas Law Firms , Ranked by Open Cases in 2013 (Filed 2009-2013)
Rank

Firm

Open Cases

1

Ward & Smith

245

629

2

Capshaw DeRieux

172

525

3

Tadlock Law Firm

171

465

4

Gillam & Smith

165

591

148

483

5 Spangler

Total Cases

7

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Parties*
Figure 19: Plaintiffs Filing Most New Cases†
Rank Plaintiff
1

Figure 20: Plaintiffs With Most Patents
Asserted in Cases Open During 2013
Cases

Melvino Technologies /ArrivalStar

Rank Plaintiff

Patents

137

1

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

103

2 Wyncomm

131

2

Intellectual Ventures I

100

3

Thermolife International

117

3

Intellectual Ventures II

81

4

Eclipse IP

67

4

Ericsson, Inc.

73

5

Innovative Wireless Solutions

63

5 Finisar

6 UbiComm

61

6

Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing 65

7

Long Corner Security

53

7

Motorola Mobility

8

Princeton Digital Image

49

8 Apple

52

9 e.Digital

47

9

41

10

47

10 Pfizer

Data Carriers

All top 10 plaintiffs are patent
monetization entities (PMEs).

Philips Electronics

59
52

30

Intellectual Ventures I and II and Ronald
A. Katz Technology Licensing are
PMEs. The remaining seven plaintiffs
are operating companies.

Figure 21: Defendants in Most New Cases**
Rank Defendant

Cases

1 Apple

59

2 Amazon

50

3 AT&T

45

4 Google

39

5 Dell

38

6 HTC

38

7 Samsung

38

8 Microsoft

35

9 LG

34

10 HP

34

* Parties as listed do not include subsidiaries, or serious misspellings.
† Excludes declaratory judgement cases.
** Excludes declaratory judgment cases.

8

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Patents
Figure 22: Most Frequently Asserted Patents*
Rank

Patent

Cases

Original Assignee

Plaintiff(s)*

1 6,952,645 133

ArrivalStar

ArrivalStar/Melvino

2 6,904,359 130

ArrivalStar

ArrivalStar/Melvino

3 7,400,970 118

Melvino

4

AT&T

5,506,866

113

ArrivalStar/Melvino
Delaware Radio/Wyncomm

5 6,714,859 83

ArrivalStar

ArrivalStar/Melvino

6 7,030,781 68

ArrivalStar

ArrivalStar/Melvino

7

Stanford University

6,117,872

66

8 6,486,801 64

ArrivalStar

9 5,603,054 60

Xerox

10

Lakshmi Arunachalam

ThermoLife

8,346,894

59

ArrivalStar/Melvino
UbiComm
Pi-Net/Arunachalam

Figure 23: Titles of Most Frequently Asserted Patents
Rank Patent

Title

1
6,952,645

System and method for activation of an advance notification system
for monitoring and reporting status of vehicle travel

2
6,904,359

Notification systems and methods with user-definable notifications
based upon occurance of events

3
7,400,970

System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and
reporting proximity of a vehicle

4

Side-channel communications in simultaneous voice and data transmission

5,506,866

5
6,714,859

System and method for an advance notification system for monitoring and
reporting proximity of a vehicle

6

Notification system and method that informs a party of vehicle delay

7,030,781

7
6,117,872

Enhancement of exercise performance by augmenting endogenous
nitric oxide production or activity

8

6,486,801

Base station apparatus and method for monitoring travel of a mobile vehicle

9
5,603,054

Method for triggering selected machine event when the triggering properties
of the system are met and the triggering conditions of an identified user
are perceived

10

Real-time web transactions from web applications

8,346,894

4,917 patents were at issue in all cases filed during 2013. Of these, 3,032, or 61%,
had not been litigated in the past 10 years.
* Plaintiff here refers to the party asserting, or claiming infringement of, the patent. In cases with
declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement or invalidity, a defendant is counted here as a plaintiff.

9

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Merits Decisions in District Court Cases
Figure 24: Patent Invalidity Merits Decisions 2007-2013

110

100
All Invalidity
Merit Decisions
90

80

Patent Decisions

70

60

50

40
102
112
30
103
20
101
Other

10

0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

10

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review
Figure 25: Merit Decisions for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter (35 U.S.C. § 101) 2007-2013
15
14

14
13
12
11

101 Merit Decisions in Year

10
9
8
7

7

6
5

5

5

4
3
2

2

2

2

1
0
2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers what constitutes patentable subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101 in CLS Bank v. Alice, it is important to note that district courts have
issued an increasing number of decisions invalidating patents on § 101 grounds.

11

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

District Court Damages Awards
Figure 26: Largest Damages Awards*
Rank Case

Damages

Against

To

Subject

1

Monsanto v. Dupont

$1,000,000,000

DuPont

Monsanto

GMO Seed

2

Apple v. Samsung

$598,908,892

Samsung

Apple

Software

3

Apple v. Samsung

$290,456,793

Samsung

Apple

Software

4

Stryker v. Zimmer

$228,326,677

Zimmer

Stryker

Medical Device

5

Tyco Healthcare v.
$140,080,000
Ethicon Endo-Surgery

Ethicon
Endo-Surgery

Tyco Healthcare

Medical Device

6

Syntrix v. Illumina

$95,795,507

Illumina

Syntrix

BioTech

7

Astrazeneca v. Apotex

$76,021,994

Apotex

Astrazeneca

Pharma

8

Two-Way Media v. AT&T $27,500,000

AT&T

Two-Way Media

Telecom

9

Pact XPP v. Xilinx

$23,099,850

Avnet, Xilinx

Pact XPP

10

Tomita v. Nintendo

$15,100,000

Nintendo

Tomita

Processor
Camera

Figure 27: Average and Median Damages, 2013 v. 2012 †
Year

Average Damages

2012

$27,209,176.99

2013

Change (%)

28%
$34,694,527.11

Median Damages
$1,027,447.34
$1,256,920.00

Change (%)
22%

Damages generally increased from 2012 to 2013, although headline-stealing damages
dragged the average higher than the median.
* Excludes costs, fees, and pre/post-judgment interest.
†

Excludes costs, fees, and pre/post-judgment interest, cases terminated before Jan. 1, 2014.

12

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
Figure 28: New ITC Investigations Filed, 2007-2013
70

70
65
60
55

Number of Investigations

55
50
45

41

40
35

41

42

35

30

31

25
20
15
10
5
0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 29: All Dispositive Outcomes by Current ALJs, through 2013*
Outcome

Charles
Bullock

Settlement

Theodore
Essex

Edward
Gildea

Sandra
Lord

Thomas
Pender

David
Shaw

40 22 23 1 7 7

Complaint Withdrawn
10 10 6 1 8
2
No Violation Found

21

13

8

0

2

3

Violation Found

15 11 5 0 1
2

Limited Exclusion Order

16

8

4

0

2

4

General Exclusion Order

10

6

3

0

1

2

Cease & Desist Order

0

9

2

0

2

2

Consent Order

9 5 6 1 0
1

Other

4 2 0 0 0
2

Totals

125 86 57 3 23
25

Figure 30: Pending Investigations, by current ALJ
Rank ALJ

Investigations

1

Essex

12

2

Shaw

11

3 Bullock

10

4 Pender

9

5 Gildea

7

6 Lord

7

Total
* Investigations may result in multiple dispositions.

56

13

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Lex Machina’s Data
This report draws on data from Lex Machina’s specialized intellectual property litigation
database. Although most of our data is derived from litigation information publicly
available from PACER (federal court system) or EDIS (the ITC system), Lex Machina
applies additional layers of intelligence to bring consistency to, and ensure the
completeness of, the data.
For example, this 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 Natureof-Suit (NoS) codes entered in PACER. But Lex Machina actively analyzes complaints
to ensure that patent cases filed under mistaken CoA/NoS codes (or a CoA/NoS code
corresponding to a different claim, e.g. contract in a combined patent/contract case) are
not missed. This same system also allows Lex Machina to filter 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 firm for another, PACER may show closed cases that the lawyer worked on at his
old firm as having been handled by his new firm. When combined with law firm
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 first days of electronic filing on PACER (and other data going back even further).
These 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.

14

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review

Appendix 1: All Pending ITC Investigations, as of December 31, 2013
Investigation Number

Matter

ALJ

Initial Notice Date

337-TA-501

Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices
and Products Containing Same

Bullock

12/19/03

337-TA-800

Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Shaw

8/31/11

337-TA-800

Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Essex

8/31/11

337-TA-816

Wiper Blades

Bullock

11/29/11

337-TA-830

Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps
and Products Containing Same

Pender

2/27/12

337-TA-833

Digital Models, Digital Data, and Treatment Plans for
Use in Making Incremental Dental Positioning Adjustment
Appliances, the Appliances Made Therefrom, and Methods
of Making the Same

Rogers

4/5/12

337-TA-837

Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same Shaw

337-TA-847

Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and
Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof

Pender

6/8/12

337-TA-849

Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same

Rogers

6/26/12

337-TA-849

Rubber Resins and Processes for Manufacturing Same

Bullock

6/26/12

337-TA-850

Electronic Imaging Devices

Essex

6/29/12

337-TA-859

Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same

Rogers

10/23/12

337-TA-859

Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same

Lord

10/23/12

337-TA-859

Integrated Circuit Chips and Products Containing the Same

Bullock

10/23/12

337-TA-860

Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Essex
Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same

10/30/12

337-TA-861

Cases for Portable Electronic Devices

Pender

11/16/12

337-TA-862

Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication
Devices, Tablet Computers, Media Players, and Televisions,
and Components Thereof

Shaw

1/8/13

337-TA-863

Paper Shredders, Certain Processes for Manufacturing
or Relating to Same and Certain Products Containing
Same and Certain Parts Thereof

Pender

1/25/13

337-TA-866

Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein

Gildea

1/31/13

337-TA-867

Cases for Portable Electronic Devices

Pender

1/31/13

337-TA-868

Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Lord

2/5/13

337-TA-868

Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Rogers

2/5/13

337-TA-868

Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Essex

2/5/13

337-TA-868

Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G Capabilities
and Components Thereof

Bullock

2/5/13

337-TA-871

Wireless Communications Base Stations
and Components Thereof

Essex

3/1/13

4/17/12

15

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review
Investigation Number

Matter

ALJ

Initial Notice Date

337-TA-871

Wireless Communications Base Stations
and Components Thereof

Gildea

3/1/13

337-TA-872

Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products
Containing Same and Components Thereof

Shaw

3/5/13

337-TA-873

Integrated Circuit Devices and Products
Containing the Same

Gildea

3/15/13

337-TA-876

Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMs Devices”)
and Products Containing Same

Gildea

4/15/13

337-TA-876

Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMs Devices”)
and Products Containing Same

Essex

4/15/13

337-TA-877

Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass
and Products Containing the Same

Essex

4/17/13

337-TA-877

Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass
and Products Containing the Same

Shaw

4/17/13

337-TA-880

Linear Actuators

Bullock

5/6/13

337-TA-881

Windshield Wiper Devices and Components Thereof

Shaw

6/11/13

337-TA-882

Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Shaw
Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones,
Components Thereof and Associated Software

6/18/13

337-TA-883

Opaque Polymers

Pender

6/21/13

337-TA-884

Consumer Electronics with Display
and Processing Capabilities

Gildea

6/25/13

337-TA-885

Portable Electronic Communications Devices,
Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof

Essex

6/26/13

337-TA-885

Portable Electronic Communications Devices,
Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof

Shaw

6/26/13

337-TA-885

Portable Electronic Communications Devices,
Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof

Lord

6/26/13

337-TA-886

TV Programs, Literary Works for TV Production and
Episode Guides Pertaining to Same

Bullock

7/15/13

337-TA-886

TV Programs, Literary Works for TV Production
and Episode Guides Pertaining to Same

Lord

7/15/13

337-TA-887

Crawler Cranes and Components Thereof

Shaw

7/17/13

337-TA-888

Silicon Microphone Packages
and Products Containing Same

Gildea

7/26/13

337-TA-889

Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablets

Essex

8/5/13

337-TA-890

Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems
and Components Thereof

Pender

8/23/13

337-TA-893

Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same

Gildea

9/9/13

337-TA-892

Point-to Point Network Communication Devices
and Products Containing Same

Shaw

9/9/13

337-TA-894

Tires and Products Containing Same

Bullock

9/20/13

337-TA-895

Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof

Lord

9/26/13

337-TA-895

Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof

Essex

9/26/13

337-TA-895

Multiple Mode Outdoor Grills and Parts Thereof

Shaw

9/26/13

16

Lex Machina – 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review
Investigation Number

Matter

ALJ

Initial Notice Date

337-TA-896

Thermal Support Devices for Infants, Infant Incubators,
Infant Warmers, and Components Thereof

Pender

337-TA-897

Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof,
and Products Containing the Same

Lord

10/25/13

337-TA-898

Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Products
Containing the Same, and Components Thereof

Essex

11/13/13

337-TA-899

Vision-Based Driver Assistance System
Cameras and Components Thereof

Bullock

11/14/13

337-TA-901

Handheld Magnifiers and Products Containing Same

Pender

11/15/13

337-TA-900

Navigation Products, Including GPS Devices, Navigation
and Display Systems, Radar Systems, Navigational Aids,
Mapping Systems and Related Software

Lord

11/15/13

337-TA-902

Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof

Essex

11/26/13

337-TA-903

Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same Bullock

10/3/13

12/11/13

17

Lex Machina
1010 Doyle Street, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: [phone]
www.lexmachina.com
© 2014 Lex Machina