Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`2019
`
`Report of the Economic Survey
`
`Prepared Under Direction of
`Law Practice Management Committee
`
`American Intellectual Property Law Association
`1400 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
`Arlington, VA 22202
`www.aipla.org
`
`Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`
`American intellectual Property Law Association
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The AIPLA Economic Survey, developed and directed by the Law Practice Management Committee of the
`American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), reports the annual incomes and related professional
`and demographic characteristics of intellectual property (IP) law attorneys and associated patent agents.
`Conducted every other year by AIPLA, this survey also examines the economic aspects of intellectual property
`law practice, including individual billing rates and typical charges for representative IP law services. All U.S.
`AIPLA members, with the exception of student members were invited to participate.
`
`The Law Practice Management Committee took an active role in reviewing the Economic Survey with a goal of
`improving the usefulness and value of the data that are collected and analyzed.
`
`DATA COLLECTION
`
`An e-mail invitation to participate in the 2019 AIPLA Economic Survey was sent to a list of 9,439 AIPLA members;
`accounting for bounces and requests to be removed from the database, the actual sample surveyed was 8,619.
`The e-mail included an individualized direct link to the Web-based questionnaire along with an attached letter
`requesting additional participation in the Firm portion of the Economic Survey. The initial e-mail was followed
`up by several e-mail reminders. Additionally, AIPLA and committee members sent out promotional emails with
`survey links as well. Similar to 2015 and 2017, additional efforts were made to collect the Firm Survey data.
`Contact information was collected directly from the Individual Survey respondents that was then used for
`distributing Firm Survey links directly to the appropriate people identified at each firm by the Individual Survey
`respondents.
`
` A
`
` total of 961 individuals responded by completing some or all of the Individual questionnaire, yielding an 11.1%
`response rate, nearly the same as the response rate in 2017. This is the seventh time the survey has been
`conducted online. Additional efforts to gather data for the Firm portion of the survey garnered 160 responses –
`lower than the 205 received in 2017.
`
`All data submitted by respondents were reviewed and evaluated for reasonableness and consistency; data
`anomalies and outliers were analyzed and corrected or deleted.
`
`In many cases, respondents did not answer every question, so the total counts for each table may vary.
`
`CHANGES TO THE SURVEY
`
` A
`
` number of enhancements were made to the 2019 Individual Survey instrument. The committee worked to
`update the survey and included new questions that covered important areas of interest to the profession. In
`Part I, the primary practice categories were updated, and questions about remote work and work status were
`added. Previously, the survey asked for years of IP law attorney experience and this year non-attorney years of
`IP law experience was added. A number of questions were reordered in this section.
`
`In Part II (Corporate Practitioners), a question was added to ask about the IP budget as it related to US
`prosecution and non-US prosecution. Part III (Private Practitioners) included new questions about discounted
`hourly billing rates. In Part IV (Typical Charges), one new charge was added to the section covering Trademarks
`(preparing and filing assignments or other formal documents). Eight new charges were added to the US Utility
`Patent section along with a top-level clarifying statement about US Utility Patents that indicates that the
`category includes foreign-origin patents where no substantive direction is received from foreign attorneys.
`These new items covered preparation and filing of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), reference
`management, Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculation, formalities, preparing and filing formal drawings,
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`preparation for and conducting examiner interviews and providing a continuation recommendation. The PTA
`calculation was stated to be excluded from an above item related to issuing an allowed application. The
`previously titled Foreign Origin and Foreign Patents category was renamed to US Utility Patents of Foreign Origin
`with the following clarifying statement: in which foreign attorneys provide substantive direction. Exclude
`government, foreign associate, drawing and similar fees. An entirely new category for Filing US Applications
`Abroad was added, and Other US Patents and Copyrights was expanded to include charges for formal drawings
`for design patent application, preparing and filing international design patent application under the Hague
`agreement, and responding to Office action in design patent application. Transactional Work that included due
`diligence, and preparing licenses, including negotiations was also added.
`
`The litigation cost question for the total cost of filing or defending a petition for a post-grant proceeding was
`expanded to collect data by technology.
`
`The 2019 Firm Survey instrument updated the titles for the types of attorneys for various questions, and most
`significantly added a section to collect the charges data similar to those collected in the Individual Survey. The
`charges data collected from the Firm Survey were combined with the Individual Survey charges data, and for this
`reason a new question about the number of full-time IP lawyers and patent agents at all locations was added to
`the Firm Survey in order to have corresponding demographic data when combining the two sets of data.
`
`In the data tables in the report, a minimum of three responses was required to show composite values. The
`term “ISD” is used in the tables to show insufficient data. Similar to the past few reports, table rows with one
`or two respondents have been omitted to protect the anonymity of respondents, and tables with no valid rows
`have likewise been omitted. In general, tables with less than 20 respondents overall were not shown in order to
`maintain statistical reliability of the data; however, for the new category Private Firm, Non-Partner Track
`Attorney, as well as for Patent Agents, a number of exceptions were made and tables were kept in spite of
`having fewer than 20 respondents overall. Some detailed tables for Litigation Costs by Location were not
`included due to low response counts. Additionally, for applicable tables, the 10th and 90th percentiles could only
`be shown if there were 10 or more respondents.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF STATISTICS AND FORMATTING CONVENTIONS
`
`Quartiles: Quartiles are used to show distributions of real numbers. Responses are described by three quartiles:
`the first quartile, the median, and the third quartile. Quartiles identify interpolated locations on a distribution of
`values and do not necessarily represent actual reported values. Another label for quartiles is percentiles; the
`first quartile is the same as the 25th percentile, the median is the 50th percentile, and the third quartile is the 75th
`percentile. For example, when all reported values are listed from highest to lowest, the third quartile identifies
`the point on the list that is equal to or greater than 75 percent (three-quarters) of the reported values and the
`first quartile identifies the point on the list that is equal to or less than 25 percent (one-quarter).
`
`10th Percentile: Also used to show distributions of real numbers, ninety percent of respondents reported this
`amount or more.
`
`90th Percentile: Ten percent reported this amount or more. If there are fewer than 10 values, the 90th
`percentile cannot be calculated.
`
`Median (midpoint): The median identifies the point in the distribution of reported values that is equal to or
`larger than one-half of reported values and equal to or smaller than one-half—that is, the mid-point.
`A median is shown when three or more values were reported by respondents. The first and third quartiles are
`shown when five or more values were reported by respondents. Quartiles and medians based on values
`reported by survey respondents are estimates of the quartiles and medians that could be determined if the
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`characteristics of the entire population represented by survey respondents were known. In general, the more
`values that are reported, the more accurately quartiles estimate the distribution of values among all AIPLA
`members.
`
`Mean (average): The mean is shown when three or more values were reported by respondents. It is equal to the
`sum of all values divided by the number of values.
`
`It should be noted that if the mean exceeds the median, it is because high values affect the calculations. It is also
`possible, especially with a small number of values, for the mean to exceed the third quartile.
`
`Percentages in some tables and some graphs may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.
`
`Other definitions useful in understanding tabular information presented in this report are:
`
`Income: Defined as “total gross income in calendar year 2018 from your primary practice…including any
`partnership income, cash bonus, share of profits, and similar income you received, and any deferred
`compensation in which you vested in 2018.”
`
`Typical Charges: Respondents were instructed to respond “only if you have been personally responsible for a
`representative sample of the type of work to which the question pertains, either as a service provider (i.e., an
`attorney in private practice) or as a purchaser of such services (i.e., corporate counsel).” When reporting,
`respondents were directed to assume “a typical case with no unusual complications,” and were asked “what did
`you charge (or would have charged, e.g., based on a fixed fee rate schedule) or what were you charged (or would
`have expected to be charged, e.g., on a fixed fee rate schedule), in 2018, for legal services only (including search
`fees, but not including copy costs, drawing fees or government fees) in each of the following types of US
`matters?” Respondents were also asked to indicate the type of fee primarily used in 2018 (i.e., fixed fee, hourly,
`other). The Firm Survey instructions were similar.
`
`Estimated Litigation Costs: Respondents were instructed to respond to these questions “only if you have
`personal knowledge either as a service provider (attorney in private practice) or as a purchaser of such services
`(corporate counsel) of the costs incurred within the relatively recent past, for the type of work to which the question
`pertains. In each of the questions, ‘total cost’ is all costs, including outside legal and paralegal services, local
`counsel, associates, paralegals, travel and living expenses, fees and costs for court reporters, photocopies, courier
`services, exhibit preparation, analytical testing, expert witnesses, translators, surveys, jury advisors, and similar
`expenses.” Respondents were further instructed to estimate these based on a single IP asset, such as one patent at
`issue or one trademark, etc.
`
`Location: The metropolitan areas of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington (DC-MD-VA), Chicago, and
`Minneapolis–St. Paul include all localities—central city and surrounding areas—within the primary metropolitan
`statistical area. Texas is the one state reported separately. There were sufficient responses to breakout Los
`Angeles and San Francisco separately; California firms outside of those metro areas were included in “Other
`West.” Other categories exclude those named metropolitan areas.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`RESPONDENT BACKGROUND
`
` ƒ
`
`A total of 961 individuals participated in the 2019 Individual survey.
`ƒ More than half (52.2%) of all respondents are Private Firm, Equity Partners, Shareholders or Private Firm,
`Partner-Track Attorneys. Another 11.3% were Solo Practitioners; up from 9.6% in the 2017 report.
`Approximately one in six respondents are either Corporate IP Department, Attorneys, or Corporate IP
`Department, Heads.
`
`
`ƒ
`
`RESPONDENTS BY TYPE OF PRACTICE
`PERCENT
`
`PRIMARY PRACTICE
`Private Firm
`Solo Practitioner
`Private Firm, Equity Partner
`Private Firm, Partner-Track Attorney*
`Private Firm, Non-Partner Track Attorney*
`Private Firm, Agent
`Private Firm, Of Counsel
`Total Private Firm
`
`11.3%
`37.7%
`14.5%
`2.1%
`2.6%
`3.7%
`72.0%
`
`7.4%
`8.8%
`2.1%
`0.8%
`2.1%
`0.6%
`21.8%
`
`0.7%
`0.3%
`1.0%
`2.0%
`
`4.2%
`4.2%
`
`Corporate
`Corporate IP, Head
`Corporate IP, Attorney
`Corporate IP, Agent
`Corporate Legal, Head
`Corporate Legal, Attorney
`Corporate Legal, Agent
`Total Corporate
`
`Government
`PTO Examiner
`PTO Admin/Management
`Government IP, not PTO
`Total Government
`
`Other
`Total Other
`
`Total
`*New categories, previously Private Firm, Associate
`
`100.0%
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`COUNT
`
`109
`362
`139
`20
`25
`36
`691
`
`
`71
`85
`20
`8
`20
`6
`210
`
`7
`3
`10
`20
`
`40
`40
`
`961
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`Primary Practice (P. I-1, Q2)
`All Respondents
`
`Corporate
`21.8%
`
`Government
`2.0%
`
`Other
`4.2%
`
`Primary Practice (P. I-1, Q2)
`All Corporate Respondents
`IP Dept Attorney
`40.5%
`
`Private Firm
`72.0%
`
`Primary Practice (P. I-1, Q2)
`All Private Firm Respondents
`
`Equity Partner
`52.4%
`
`Partner-Track
`20.1%
`
`IP Dept Patent Agent
`9.5%
`
`Head of Legal Dept
`3.8%
`
`Head of IP Dept
`33.8%
`
`Non-Partner Track
`2.9%
`
`Patent Agent
`3.6%
`
`Of counsel
`5.2%
`
`Solo Practitioner
`15.8%
`
`Legal Dept Attorney
`9.5%
`
`Legal Dpt Patent Agent
`2.9%
`
`Primary Practice (P. I-1, Q2)
`All Government Respondents
`
`PTO Examiner
`35.0%
`
`PTO Admin, Mgmt
`15.0%
`
`Govt IP, Not PTO
`50.0%
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`ƒ
`
`ƒ
`
`ƒ
`
`Respondents typically (91.4%) have been admitted to
`the patent bar.
`This year, respondents are similar in age, but slightly
`older than those that participated in 2017. They are
`more likely to be 50 or older (55.5%) than in 2017
`(52.1%). Approximately one-third of respondents in
`2019 are between the ages of 50 and 59. This is similar
`to the 32.4% reported in 2017, but in 2019, there are
`slightly higher proportions of those 60 and older
`compared to 2017, 22.4% vs. 19.7%, respectively.
`Survey participants are typically white/Caucasian
`(86.5%) men (80.3%) that work full-time (93.3%).
`ƒ Not including a law degree, 58.4% of respondents hold
`a bachelor’s degree, while 25.6% report holding a
`master’s degree. Another 15.2% have a doctorate.
`ƒ
`
`Work Full-Time (P. I-4, Q4)
`
`No
`6.7%
`
`Admitted to the Patent Bar (P. I-1, Q5)
`
`Yes
`91.4%
`
`No
`8.6%
`
`ƒ
`
`In 2019, 49.3% of all respondents have 20 years or more
`of IP law attorney experience. A more experienced
`group when compared to 2017 respondents; when
`41.5% had 20 years or more of IP law attorney
`experience.
`Comparable to 2017, the most prevalent IP technical
`specialization (over 50% of time) is mechanical (31.6% in
`2019 and 31.2% in 2017). Computer software (18.7%),
`electrical (13.8%), and chemical (12.6%) are the other
`areas of specialization that produce a double-digit
`response.
`ƒ With proportions similar to 2017, about one-third of
`respondents (33.8%) practice in the Mid-Atlantic or New
`England area, including 14.2% in the Washington, DC,
`
`Consolidated Metropolitan
`Statistical Area (CMSA). The Central
`region represents 28.5% of all
`respondents, and almost one-
`quarter (23.3%) are located in the
`West, 7.0% were located in Texas.
`Members outside of the U.S. were
`not surveyed this year.
`
`Yes
`93.3%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Years of Intellectual Property Law Attorney Experience
`(P. I-2, Q9)
`
`20-24
`18.4%
`
`15-19
`17.2%
`
`10-14
`16.3%
`
`7-9
`7.1%
`
`35-39
`5.9%
`
`40 or More
`6.3%
`
`Fewer than 5
`5.2%
`
`5-6
`4.8%
`
`25-29
`11.8%
`
`30-34
`6.9%
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`METROPOLITAN AREAS
`
`LOCATION
`
`Boston CMSA*
`New York City CMSA*
`Philadelphia CMSA*
`Washington, DC CMSA*
`Other East: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
`York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia
`Metro Southeast: Raleigh–Durham, Greensboro–Winston-Salem, and Charlotte, NC; Atlanta, GA;
`and Miami–Ft. Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL
`Other Southeast: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
`Chicago CMSA*
`Minneapolis–St. Paul PMSA**
`Other Central: Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
`Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
`Alabama, and Tennessee
`Texas
`Los Angeles CMSA*
`San Francisco CMSA*
`Other West: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona,
`Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii
` *CMSA: Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area– a metro area with a population of one million or more.
`**PMSA: Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area– a component of a CMSA.
`
`PERCENT
`
`COUNT
`
`5.1%
`6.6%
`3.6%
`14.2%
`4.3%
`
`3.9%
`3.7%
`5.9%
`5.4%
`
`17.2%
`
`7.0%
`4.0%
`5.0%
`14.3%
`
`49
`63
`35
`136
`41
`
`37
`36
`57
`52
`
`165
`
`67
`38
`48
`137
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Location (P. I-2, Q1)
`
`Other Southeast
`3.7%
`
`Chicago CMSA
`5.9%
`
`Other East
`4.3%
`
`Metro Southeast
`3.9%
`
`Minne.-St. Paul PMSA
`5.4%
`
`Other Central
`17.2%
`
`Texas
`7.0%
`
`Los Angeles CMSA
`4.0%
`
`San Francisco CMSA
`5.0%
`
`Other West
`14.3%
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`Washington, DC CMSA
`14.2%
`
`Philadelphia CMSA
`3.6%
`
`NYC CMSA
`6.6%
`
`Boston CMSA
`5.1%
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`Age (P. I-1, Q6)
`
`45-49
`14.6%
`
`40-44
`13.4%
`
`50-54
`16.6%
`
`55-59
`16.5%
`
`35-39
`10.2%
`
`30-34
`5.7%
`
`Younger than 30
`0.6%
`
`65 or Older
`11.3%
`
`Gender (P. I-1, Q7)
`
`Ethnicity (P. I-1, Q8)
`
`60-64
`11.1%
`
`White/Caucasian
`86.5%
`
`Female
`19.7%
`
`Other, 2.2%
`Blended, 1.9%
`N.A. Indian/Native Canadian, 0.1%
`
`Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.6%
`
`Hispanic/Latino, 1.9%
`
`Black/African American, 1.7%
`
`Highest Education Other Than Law (P. I-2, Q11)
`
`None
`0.2%
`
`Bachelor's Degree
`58.4%
`
`Doctorate Degree
`15.2%
`
`Other
`0.6%
`
`Master's Degree
`25.6%
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`Male
`80.3%
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`TYPICAL COSTS OF LITIGATION
`
`Survey participants were asked to provide cost estimates, but only for the types of litigation they had personal
`knowledge of, either as a service provider (attorney in private practice) or as a purchaser (corporate counsel), and
`were engaged in relatively recently. “Total cost” was requested, and includes outside legal and paralegal services,
`local counsel, associates, paralegals, travel and living expenses, fees and costs for court reporters, photocopies,
`courier services, exhibit preparation, analytical testing, expert witnesses, translators, surveys, jury advisors, and
`similar expenses. Participants were also asked to estimate based on a single IP asset (i.e., one patent at issue, one
`trademark, etc.).
`
`
`The following table reports median litigation costs for Patent Infringement, All Varieties, Patent Infringement
`Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, Patent Infringement by Non-Practicing Entity, Section 337 Patent Infringement
`Action in the International Trade Commission, Post-Grant Proceedings by Technology – which is new this year,
`Trademark Infringement, Trademark Opposition/Cancellation, Copyright Infringement, and Trade Secret
`Misappropriation. In the previous (2017) survey, new categories (varieties) were created including initial case
`management; inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim construction; inclusive of pretrial, trial, post-trial, and appeal
`(when applicable); and the cost of mediation.
`
`In order to facilitate temporal comparisons of litigation costs to previous surveys, and in consultation with AIPLA staff,
`new varieties were matched up (when possible starting in 2017) with old varieties based mainly on the variety name.
`For example, Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim construction was matched up with End of discovery, and Cost
`of mediation was matched up with Mediation. It should be noted that these comparisons are approximate given the
`differences in variety names, and thus caution should be exercised when making comparisons to the historical data.
`
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS
`
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT, ALL VARIETIES
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`
`
`
`
` 2013
`
`
`N/A
`$350
`
`$700
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$1,000
`
`$2,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$2,000
`
`$3,325
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$3,000
`
`$5,500
`
`N/A
`
` 50
`
`
`
`
`$000S
` 2015
`
`
`N/A
`$400
`
`$600
`
`$100
`
`N/A
`$950
`
`$2,000
`
`$200
`
`N/A
`$1,900
`
`$3,100
`
`$250
`
`N/A
`$3,000
`
`$5,000
`
`$300
`
`2017
`
`
`$25
`$250
`
`$500
`
`$25
`
`$60
`$550
`
`$1,000
`
`$50
`
`$100
`$1,000
`
`$2,000
`
`$75
`
`$138
`$1,700
`
`$3,000
`
`$100
`
`2019
`
`
`$50
`$250
`
`$700
`
`$40
`
`$80
`$600
`
`$1,500
`
`$50
`
`$150
`$1,225
`
`$2,700
`
`$80
`
`$250
`$2,375
`
`$4,000
`
`$100
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS (CONTINUED)
`
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT PURSUANT TO THE
`HATCH-WAXMAN ACT (I.E., "ANDA LITIGATION")
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT, DEFENDING CLAIMS OF
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY NON-PRACTICING ENTITY
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`
`
`
` 2013
`
`
`N/A
`$300
`
`$513
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$1,000
`
`$1,800
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$2,500
`
`$4,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$3,250
`
`$6,000
`
`N/A
`
`
`N/A
`$300
`
`$600
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$750
`
`$1,250
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$1,500
`
`$2,400
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$2,500
`
`$4,000
`
`N/A
`
`
`
` 51
`
`$000S
`2015
`
`
`N/A
`$350
`
`$650
`
`$75
`
`N/A
`$1,000
`
`$1,500
`
`$200
`
`N/A
`$1,500
`
`$3,000
`
`$200
`
`N/A
`$3,000
`
`$5,000
`
`$175
`
`
`N/A
`$300
`
` $500
`
` $100
`
`N/A
`$570
`
`$1,000
`
`$113
`
`N/A
`$1,200
`
`$2,000
`
`$200
`
`N/A
`$2,000
`
`$3,750
`
`$213
`
`2017
`
`
`$25
`$163
`
`$250
`
`$40
`
`$50
`$300
`
`$288
`
`$68
`
`$80
`$400
`
`$750
`
`$65
`
`$100
`$500
`
`$1,100
`
`$125
`
`
`$25
`$200
`
`$500
`
`$25
`
`$50
`$500
`
`$850
`
`$35
`
`$55
`$713
`
`$1,250
`
`$50
`
`$100
`$1,100
`
`$2,000
`
`$63
`
`2019
`
`
`$150
`$400
`
`$900
`
`$100
`
`$250
`$1,000
`
`$2,500
`
`$100
`
`$250
`$2,000
`
`$3,500
`
`$150
`
`$400
`$3,000
`
`$5,000
`
`$150
`
`
`$40
`$250
`
`$750
`
`$45
`
`$75
`$750
`
`$1,875
`
`$50
`
`$125
`$1,500
`
`$3,000
`
`$90
`
`$200
`$2,500
`
`$4,500
`
`$100
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`$000S
`2015
`
`
`N/A
`$500
`
`$750
`
`$100
`
`N/A
`$1,000
`
`$1,600
`
`$113
`
`N/A
`$2,000
`
`$4,000
`
`$150
`
`N/A
`$3,250
`
`$5,000
`
`$250
`
`$80
`
`$200
`
`$275
`
`$350
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`2017
`
`
`$50
`$200
`
`$250
`
`$30
`
`$100
`$500
`
`$675
`
`$50
`
`$120
`$1,000
`
`$1,300
`
`$50
`
`$275
`$1,875
`
`$2,000
`
`$75
`
`$100
`
`$200
`
`$250
`
`$350
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`2019
`
`
`$100
`$400
`
`$750
`
`$50
`
`$250
`$2,000
`
`$4,000
`
`$100
`
`$300
`$4,000
`
`$6,000
`
`$150
`
`$500
`$5,500
`
`$8,000
`
`$150
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`$150
`$325
`$450
`$650
`
`$105
`$275
`$325
`$450
`
`$100
`$238
`$300
`$400
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS (CONTINUED)
`
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT, SECTION 337
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`POST-GRANT (WAS INTER PARTES) PROCEEDINGS
` Through filing petition (Detail reported below in
`2019)
` Through end of motion practice (Detail reported
`below in 2019)
` Through PTAB hearing (Detail reported below in
`2019)
` Through appeal (Detail reported below in 2019)
`COVERED BUSINESS METHOD (CBM) REVIEW
`Through filing petition (New in 2019)
`Through end of motion practice (New in 2019)
`Through PTAB hearing (New in 2019)
`Through appeal (New in 2019)
`PGR/IPR – ELECTRICAL/COMPUTER
`Through filing petition (New in 2019)
`Through end of motion practice (New in 2019)
`Through PTAB hearing (New in 2019)
`Through appeal (New in 2019)
`PGR/IPR - MECHANICAL
`Through filing petition (New in 2019)
`Through end of motion practice (New in 2019)
`Through PTAB hearing (New in 2019)
`Through appeal (New in 2019)
`
`
`
`
` 2013
`
`
`N/A
`$375
`
`$550
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$750
`
`$1,800
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$1,500
`
`$3,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$3,000
`
`$5,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`N/A
`
` 52
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS (CONTINUED)
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`
`
` 2013
`
`
`N/A
`$150
`
`$300
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$350
`
`$550
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$500
`
`$1,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$750
`
`$1,500
`
`N/A
`
`
`$000S
`2015
`
`
`N/A
`$150
`
`$325
`
`$50
`
`N/A
`$263
`
`$500
`
`$75
`
`N/A
`$400
`
`$720
`
`$100
`
`N/A
`$900
`
`2017
`
`
`$15
`$150
`
`$300
`
`$20
`
`$25
`$275
`
`$475
`
`$30
`
`$38
`$400
`
`$750
`
`$50
`
`$50
`$600
`
`$1,600
`
`$100
`
`
`$1,000
`
`$53
`
`
`2019
`
`
`$15
`$150
`
`$275
`
`$23
`
`$50
`$343
`
`$888
`
`$50
`
`$120
`$500
`
`$1,450
`
`$88
`
`$175
`$1,600
`
`$2,750
`
`$200
`
`
`
`
`
` 53
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS (CONTINUED)
`
`TRADEMARK OPPOSITION/CANCELLATION
` End of discovery
` Inclusive, all costs
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`
`2013
`
`$50
`$80
`
`
`N/A
`$150
`
`$300
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$350
`
`$563
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$600
`
`$1,000
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$775
`
`$1,625
`
`N/A
`
` $000S
` 2015
`
`$50
`$95
`
`
`N/A
`$150
`
`$250
`
`$40
`
`N/A
`$250
`
`$500
`
`$63
`
`N/A
`$500
`
`$750
`
`$100
`
`N/A
`$750
`
`2017
`
`$50
`$80
`
`
`$15
`$100
`
`$200
`
`$25
`
`$25
`$213
`
`$388
`
`$40
`
`$50
`$375
`
`$600
`
`$50
`
`$50
`$600
`
`$1,200
`
`$100
`
`$1,000
`
`$100
`
`2019
`
`$50
`$100
`
`
`$25
`$150
`
`$550
`
`$25
`
`$95
`$1,000
`
`$1,750
`
`$50
`
`$150
`$1,500
`
`$3,500
`
`$100
`
`$400
`$2,500
`
`$6,500
`
`$200
`
`
`
`
` 54
`
`
`
`
`

`

`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey 2019
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-6 Filed 11/30/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`MEDIAN LITIGATION COSTS (CONTINUED)
`
`TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION SUIT
`LESS THAN $1 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$1-$10 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`$10-$25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`MORE THAN $25 MILLION AT RISK
` Initial case management
` Inclusive of discovery, motions, and claim
` construction
` Inclusive of pre and post-trial, and appeal when
` applicable
` Cost of mediation
`
`
`2013
`
`
`N/A
`$250
`
`$425
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$500
`
`$800
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$850
`
`$1,400
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`$1,900
`
`$2,9