LegalMetric District Report
`Texas Eastern District Court
`in Patent Cases
`
`January 2017-September 2021
`
`This report contains confidential and proprietary information of LegalMetric, Inc. Use of this information by
`anyone other than the purchaser or, if the purchaser is a law firm, the purchaser's client, or disclosure of this
`information to persons other than the purchaser or, if the purchaser is a law firm, the purchaser's client, without
`the consent of LegalMetric, Inc. is prohibited.
`
`The information contained in this report is obtained from the official docket records of the federal courts. No
`attempt has been made to correct that data. For example, cases may be misclassified in the official docket
`records. In addition, cases are classified only by the primary cause of action. Cases having multiple causes of
`action are analyzed only under the primary cause of action identitied on the official court docket.
`
`LegalMetric, Inc. is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and is not engaged in the practice of law. No
`attorney-client relationship exists between LegalMetric, Inc. and any user of its products. LegalMetric provides
`statistical and analytical information to anyone who desires to purchase that information. Any purchaser of
`LegalMetric products who wants legal advice should hire an attorney.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`1
`
`

`

`Overview
`
`This report covers the patent cases of the active judges in the Texas Eastern District Court as of November
`2021 (the date of the most recent LegalMetric docket download for this court). Cases of inactive judges are
`not included.
`The number of cases, judgments,
`contested judgments, and trials for this
`court are shown below.
`
`Patentee and Accused Infringer Overall Win
`Rate by Year
`
`Number
`
`Patentee Overall Win
`Rate
`Acc. Infr. Overall Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2020
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`
`Accused Win Rate
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`32.1
`21.4
`59.5
`50.0
`61.1
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`67.9
`78.6
`40.5
`50.0
`38.9
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`
`18.7
`
`38.9
`
`9.0
`
`22.8
`
`23.9
`23.4
`
`21.9
`
`23.2
`
`0
`
`5
`
`10
`
`25
`20
`15
`Months from Case Filing
`
`30
`
`35
`
`40
`
`Larger Version in Body of Report
`
`3564
`469
`3095
`156
`117
`42
`
`63
`
`Total Cases
`Open Cases
`Closed Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgmnts
`Trials
`Bench
`Jury
`
`6
`The overall win rate, contested win rate,
`and trial win rate for the patentee are
`shown to the right and the corresponding
`times to termination are shown below.
`Contested win rates do not include
`consent and default judgments.
`Months
`
`All Cases
`Judgments
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`10.6
`22.7
`23.5
`29.4
`38.8
`27.8
`
`Color Scheme: Red in the tables indicates a
`win rate more than 10% more favorable to
`the ACCUSED INFRINGER, or a pendency
`time at least 6 months SLOWER than the
`national average. Yellow indicates a win rate
`from 0% to 10% more favorable to the
`ACCUSED INFRINGER, or a pendency time
`from 0 to 6 months SLOWER than the
`national average. Bright (lime) green
`indicates a win rate from 0% to 10% more
`favorable to the PATENTEE, or a pendency
`time from 0 to 6 months FASTER than the
`national average. And dark green indicates a
`win rate more than 10% more favorable to
`the PATENTEE than the national average,
`or a pendency time over 6 months FASTER
`than the national average.
`
`The average and median award
`amounts for this district are:
`Average:
`$103,689,279
`Median:
`$20,000,000
`
`Appeals:
`
`Total
`
`Number of Appeals Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`59
`
`76.7
`
`2
`
`

`

`Motions and Claim Construction:
`The win rates on various motions for the district (if any), along with the number of decisions and the number of claim
`construction decisions are shown below.
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`Win Rate
`
`40.0
`
`100.0
`
`27.2
`
`50.0
`
`24.7
`
`51.2
`
`Win Rates on Contested Motions
`
`100.0
`
`40.0
`
`50.0
`
`51.2
`
`27.2
`
`24.7
`
`
`
`Sum mary Judgment
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`0.0
`TRO
`
`Transfer
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Claim Construction
`194
`
`reliminary Injunction
`
`tay Pending CBM
`Rev.
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`92
`Stay Pending Reexam
`14
`
`5P
`
`1S
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay Pending CBM Rev
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`TRO
`
`194
`
`5
`
`1
`
`92
`
`14
`
`253
`
`211
`
`1
`
`TRO
`1
`Transfer
`211
`
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`253
`
`3
`
`

`

`Alice Motions: The number of Alice motions and win rates on those motions are shown below, by motion type.
`
`Total
`
`Texas Eastern
`
`Total
`
`Dismissal Motion
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Total
`
`Win Rate
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`30.8
`
`30.8
`
`35.9
`
`13.0
`
`19.4
`
`180
`
`180
`
`135
`
`27
`
`18
`
`4
`
`

`

`Home Field Advantage?
`The plaintiff and defendant contested win rates in Texas Eastern District Court are shown below, broken out by party
`location:
`
`(Away - Plaintiff and Defendant (neither side located in the forum), Defendant Local - Plaintiff Away (only defendant
`located in the forum), Local - Plaintiff and Defendant (both sides located in the forum) and Plaintiff Local - Defendant
`Away (plaintiff local - defendant not).
`
`Not all courts fit the expected pattern of favoring local plaintiffs. Many courts in fact show a distinct preference for
`non-local plaintiffs.
`
`The win rate charts are followed by a chart illustrating the fractions of contested judgment cases (cases in which a
`judgment is entered in favor of a party, but excluding consent and default judgments) for each category (all local plaintiffs,
`etc.). Many well-known patent venues tend to have a large segment of cases in the "Away - Plaintiff and Defendant"
`category.
`Plaintiff Win Rate, by Party Location
`
`Defendant Win Rate, by Party Location
`
`83.3
`
`60.0
`
`40.0
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`60.0
`
`40.0
`
`16.7
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Fraction of Contested Judgments, by Party Location
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`5.3%
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`2.2%
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`92.5%
`
`5
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Division
`The breakdown of patent cases by division is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Total Patent Cases, by Division
`
`Beaumont
`19
`ufkin
`
`9L
`
`Marshall
`2446
`
`Tyler
`568
`Texarkana
`112
`Sherman
`410
`
`6
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Case Outcome
`The breakdown of patent cases by case outcome is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Case Outcomes by Type
`
`Remand to State
`Court
`
`0.0%
`Referral to Arbitration
`0.0%
`Other Termination
`0.6%
`Other Settlement
`2.8%
`MDL Transfer
`0.2%
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`0.3%
`Jury Verdict
`1.2%
`Involuntary Dismissal
`1.6%
`Intra-District Transfer
`0.1%
`Improper Venue
`0.3%
`Default Judgment
`0.3%
`Consolidated
`2.0%
`Consent Judgment
`1.0%
`Bench Trial
`0.2%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`83.0%
`
`7
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Judge
`
`The chart and table below illustrates the total number of patent cases for each of the active judges in the
`district. In addition, the table shows the number of patent cases for the past three years assigned to each judge.
`Number of Cases, by Judge
`
`2,206
`
`317
`
`807
`
`400
`
`800
`
`1200
`
`1600
`
`2000
`
`2400
`
`
`
`1 6 2
`
`8
`
`Atlas
`
`Barker
`
`Bryson
`
`0 9 3 0 1 0
`
`0 1
`
`Bush
`
`Clark
`
`Craven
`
`Crone
`
`Dyk
`
`Giblin
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Heartfield
`
`Johnson
`
`Jordan
`
`88
`
`Kernodle
`
`26
`
`Love
`
`13
`
`18
`
`28
`
`2 0
`
`Mazzant
`
`Mitchell
`
`Payne
`
`Schell
`
`Schneider
`
`Schroeder
`
`10
`Truncale
`0
`
`8
`
`

`

`District
`
`Atlas
`
`Barker
`
`Bryson
`
`Clark
`
`Craven
`
`Dyk
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Johnson
`
`Jordan
`
`Kernodle
`
`Love
`
`Mazzant
`
`Mitchell
`
`Payne
`
`Schell
`
`Schroeder
`
`Truncale
`
`All Cases
`
`Last Three Years
`
`3564
`
`1209
`
`1
`
`6
`
`28
`
`9
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2206
`
`1
`
`88
`
`26
`
`13
`
`317
`
`18
`
`28
`
`2
`
`807
`
`10
`
`0
`
`6
`
`5
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`804
`
`1
`
`88
`
`26
`
`0
`
`188
`
`0
`
`3
`
`1
`
`77
`
`10
`
`9
`
`

`

`Divisional Comparisons
`The overall patentee case win rate (includes consent and default judgments), contested win rate (does NOT
`include consent and default judgments), trial win rate, complete affirmance rate (appeals affirmed with no other
`action, divided by the total number of appeals except for dismissed and pending appeals), and average time to
`termination by judgment (includes consent and default judgments) are shown below for each division.
`
`Patentee Overall Case Win Rate
`
`100.0
`
`54.5
`
`34.9
`
`
`
`Beaumont
`
`Lufkin
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`14.7
`
`Tyler
`
`0.0
`Texarkana
`
`Contested Patentee Win Rate
`
`100.0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`Percentage
`
`Percentage
`
`Plaintiff Win Rate/
`No. of Judgments
`32.1
`156
`
`100.0
`
`34.9
`
`54.5
`
`0.0
`
`14.7
`
`1
`
`109
`
`11
`
`1
`
`34
`
`Contested Win Rate/
`Number Contested
`21.4
`117
`
`100.0
`
`22.9
`
`20.0
`
`1
`
`83
`
`5
`
`District
`
`Beaumont
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`District
`
`Beaumont
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`22.9
`
`20.0
`
`
`
`Beaumont
`
`Lufkin
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`0.0
`Texarkana
`
`Patentee Trial Win Rate
`
`100
`
`14.8
`
`Tyler
`
`80
`
`61
`
`25
`
`
`
`Beaumont
`
`Lufkin
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`0
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`20
`
`0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`0.0
`
`14.8
`
`1
`
`27
`
`Trial Win Rate/
`Number of Trials
`59.5
`42
`
`100.0
`
`61.3
`
`25.0
`
`0.0
`
`80.0
`
`1
`
`31
`
`4
`
`1
`
`5
`
`District
`
`Beaumont
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`10
`
`

`

`Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`79.2
`
`33.3
`
`
`
`Beaumont
`
`Lufkin
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`38.9
`
`30.2
`
`28.6
`
`20.4
`
`19.5
`
`
`
`Beaumont
`
`Lufkin
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`40
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`Percentage
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Complete Aff. Rate/
`Number of Appeals
`76.7
`30
`
`100.0
`
`79.2
`
`100.0
`
`33.3
`
`1
`
`24
`
`2
`
`3
`
`District
`
`Beaumont
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Tyler
`
`Time to Term./
`Number of Judgmts.
`22.7
`156
`
`38.9
`
`20.4
`
`19.5
`
`28.6
`
`30.2
`
`1
`
`109
`
`11
`
`1
`
`34
`
`District
`
`Beaumont
`
`Marshall
`
`Sherman
`
`Texarkana
`
`Tyler
`
`11
`
`

`

`What are the Odds: Termination by Judgment
`
`The percentage of closed
`patent cases terminated by
`judgment are shown in the
`chart to the right.
`Terminations by judgments
`include terminations resulting
`from trials, from dispositive
`summary judgment motions,
`from involuntary dismissals,
`from consent judgments, and
`from default judgments.
`
`Cases Closed by Judgment
`
`Judgment
`5.0%
`
`
`95.0%
`
`The number of judgments by each outcome, the overall patentee win rate, the contested patentee win rate,
`and the trial win rate for each outcome are shown below. Note that the overall win rate includes consent
`and default judgments, whereas the contested win rate does not include consent and default judgments.
`The figures given are for "patentees", rather than "plaintiffs". These figures take into account those
`declaratory judgment cases where the plaintiff is not the patentee.
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Voluntary Dismissal-Joint
`
`Number of Judgments Overall Win Rate Contested Win Rate Trial Win Rate
`
`6
`
`31
`
`8
`
`50
`
`36
`
`2
`
`8
`
`14
`
`1
`
`50.0
`
`54.8
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`61.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`61.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`61.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Win Rates by Year
`The following chart shows the patentee overall win rate and contested win rate for the active judges in the
`Texas Eastern District Court by year. The overall patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide overall win rate of 54.3%, and the contested patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide patentee contested win rate of 21.4%. A chart with a considerable amount of "jitter" reflects
`relatively few data points. Note that the contested patentee win rates are usually much lower than the
`overall win rates since they exclude consent and default judgments.
`
`Patentee Win Rate by Year: Overall and Contested
`
`Patentee Overall Win
`Rate
`Acc. Infringer Overall
`Win Rate
`Patentee Contested Win
`Rate
`Acc. Infringer Contested
`Win Rate
`
`
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`The total number of terminations by judgment per year by the currently active judges during the same
`period in the Texas Eastern District Court is shown in the following chart:
`
`Terminations by Judgment Each Year: Currently
`Active Judges
`
`
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`13
`
`

`

`The actual number of judgments, number of patentee "wins", and the corresponding win rates are shown
`below. In this report, a judgment entered in favor of both the plaintiff and the defendant on their respective
`patent infringement claims is counted as "1/2" a win for each party. This could happen, for example, where
`the plaintiff files a patent infringement action, the defendant files a patent infringement counterclaim on its
`own patents, and both prevail on their respective claims.
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Patentee Wins
`
` Total Decisions Patentee Win Rate Acc. Infr. Win Rate
`
`15
`
`13
`
`9
`
`6
`
`7
`
`63
`
`30
`
`35
`
`15
`
`13
`
`23.8
`
`43.3
`
`25.7
`
`40.0
`
`53.8
`
`76.2
`
`56.7
`
`74.3
`
`60.0
`
`46.2
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patentee Overall and Contested Win Rates: By Judge
`
`The overall patentee win rate varies significantly from judge to judge over the period covered by this
`report. The chart below illustrates these win rates for these judges. The win rate for judges with no
`terminations by judgment is left blank.
`
`Patentee Overall Win Rate: By
`Judge
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`16.7
`
`16.7
`
`14.9
`
`20
`
`100.0
`
`66.7
`
`40.0
`
`50.0
`
`40.0
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`15
`
`

`

`The patentee contested win rate for these judges is shown below. Note that contested win rates do not
`include consent and default judgments. The win rate for judges with no contested judgments is left blank.
`
`Patentee Contested Win Rate:
`By Judge
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`0.0
`
`20.0
`
`25.9
`
`16.7
`
`25.0
`
`12.2
`
`20
`
`100.0
`
`40.0
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`16
`
`

`

`The table below includes the patentee overall and contested win rates for each active judge, along with the
`number of terminations by judgment and by contested judgment by that judge in patent cases during the
`period covered by this report. Judges with no judgments are not included.
`
`Overall Win Rate Number of Judgments Contested Win Rate Contested Judgments
`
`Total
`
`Bryson
`
`Clark
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Jordan
`
`Love
`
`Mazzant
`
`Payne
`
`Schroeder
`
`32.1
`
`16.7
`
`100.0
`
`40.0
`
`66.7
`
`16.7
`
`50.0
`
`40.0
`
`14.9
`
`156
`
`6
`
`1
`
`80
`
`3
`
`6
`
`8
`
`5
`
`47
`
`21.4
`
`20.0
`
`100.0
`
`25.9
`
`0.0
`
`16.7
`
`25.0
`
`40.0
`
`12.2
`
`117
`
`5
`
`1
`
`54
`
`1
`
`6
`
`4
`
`5
`
`41
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patentee Win Rates: By Nominating President: The number of patent cases in this district assigned to
`active judges and the win rates for those cases are shown below, broken out by the nominating president.
`
`Number of Cases - by Nominating President
`
`William J. Clinton
`203
`Ronald Reagan
`107
`George W. Bush
`937
`Donald J. Trump
`130
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Plaintiff Percentage of Cases Won
`
`Patentee Win Rates: The win
`rates for these cases, broken out
`by nominating president, are
`shown in the chart to the right.
`This includes overall win rates
`(includes consent and default
`judgments), contested win rates
`(does NOT include consent and
`default judgments), and trial win
`rates (cases decided by bench trial
`or jury verdict).
`
`Number of Cases: The number of
`cases assigned to active jduges in
`this district is shown in the chart to
`the left, broken out by nominating
`president. This includes all cases
`of the type covered by this report.
`
`Barack Obama
`Donald J. Trump
`George W. Bush
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`86.8%
`1.2%
`9.0%
`1.0%
`1.9%
`100.0%
`
`Barack Obama
`9,065
`
`Win Rates by Nominating President
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`
`Barack
`Obama
`
`Donald J.
`Trump
`
`George W.
`Bush
`
`Ronald
`Reagan
`
`William J.
`Clinton
`
`Total
`
`Overall Win
`Rate
`
`# of
`Judgments
`
`Contested Win
`Rate
`
`# of Contested
`Judgments
`
`Trial Win
`Rate
`
`# of Trial
`Jugements
`
`Barack Obama
`
`Donald J. Trump
`
`George W. Bush
`
`Ronald Reagan
`
`William J. Clinton
`
`39.2
`
`66.7
`
`58.6
`
`50.0
`
`41.3
`
`301
`
`3
`
`58
`
`8
`
`23
`
`22.3
`
`0.0
`
`52.4
`
`20.0
`
`16.7
`
`211
`
`1
`
`42
`
`5
`
`15
`
`57.7
`
`81.5
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`78
`
`0
`
`27
`
`2
`
`5
`
`18
`
`

`

`How Long? Time to Termination
`
`The average time from case filing to termination for all closed cases, for all cases terminated by judgment,
`for all cases terminated by contested judgment, and for all cases terminated by trial covered by this report
`are shown below.
`
`Time to Termination
`
`22.7
`
`23.5
`
`29.4
`
`10.6
`
`All Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Judgment
`
`Contested
`Judgment Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Trial
`
`32
`
`28
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`The average time from case filing to termination for all closed cases by year, for all cases terminated by
`judgment, for all cases terminated by contested judgment, and for all cases terminated by trial covered by
`this report are shown below.
`
`Time to Termination By Year
`
`All Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgments
`Trial Terminations
`
`
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`19
`
`

`

`Time to Contested Judgment: By Judge
`The average time from case filing to contested judgment for the active judges in this district is shown in the
`chart below.
`
`Average Time to Contested
`Judgment: By Judge
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`16.8
`
`38.9
`
`9.9
`
`24.9
`
`23.9
`
`28.3
`
`21.9
`
`22.1
`
`5
`
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`35
`
`40
`
`20
`
`

`

`Average Time to Termination by Case Outcomes
`The number of cases terminated by each outcome for the active judges in this district is shown in the chart
`below, and the average time to termination for each outcome is shown in the second chart below.
`Case Outcomes
`
`63
`
`16
`
`1
`
`893
`
`50
`
`36
`
`96
`
`88
`18
`
`11 1
`
`9
`
`0
`
`4
`
`175
`
`2,570
`
`400
`
`800
`
`1600
`1200
`Number of Cases
`
`2000
`
`2400
`
`2800
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`Improper Venue
`Intra-District Transfer
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Jury Verdict
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`MDL Transfer
`Other Settlement
`Other Termination
`Referral to Arbitration
`Remand to State Court
`Stay
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`Average Time to Termination by
`Outcome
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`Improper Venue
`Intra-District Transfer
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Jury Verdict
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`MDL Transfer
`Other Settlement
`Other Termination
`Referral to Arbitration
`Remand to State Court
`Stay
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`4.5
`
`10.8
`
`7.0
`
`16.0
`
`15.7
`
`9.2
`
`5.8
`
`12.4
`
`8.4
`
`3.4
`
`21.3
`
`38.8
`
`27.8
`
`35.0
`
`23.7
`
`8.9
`10.0
`
`15.3
`30
`25
`15
`10
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`0
`
`5
`
`35
`
`40
`
`21
`
`

`

`Termination by Month of Litigation
`An overview of when terminations typically occur is found in the following chart, which shows the number
`of patent cases in the Texas Eastern District Court that were terminated each month of litigation. The first
`month of litigation is labeled "1", etc. Months with no case terminations are omitted from the chart.
`
`Closed Cases Each Month
`
` 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99
`Month of Litigation
`
`1400
`
`1200
`
`1000
`
`800
`
`600
`
`400
`
`200
`
`0
`
`Number of Terminations
`
`22
`
`

`

`Average Pendency for All Cases: By Judge
`The variation in pendency for all closed cases is shown below.
`
`Average Time to
`Termination for All Cases
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`1.5
`
`15.6
`
`15.5
`
`25.3
`
`10.1
`
`9.7
`
`8.9
`
`5.3
`4.9
`
`23.9
`
`30.5
`
`19.4
`21.2
`
`12.1
`
`3.6
`4
`
`12 16 20 24 28 32
`8
`Months from Case Filing
`
`23
`
`

`

`Average Pendency for Cases Terminated by Judgment: By Judge
`The variation in pendency for all cases terminated by judgment is shown below.
`
`Average Time to
`Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`18.7
`
`38.9
`
`9.0
`
`22.8
`
`23.9
`23.4
`
`21.9
`
`23.2
`
`10 15 20 25 30 35 40
`5
`Months from Case Filing
`
`24
`
`

`

`Average Pendency for Cases Terminated by Contested Judgment: By Judge
`The variation in pendency for all cases terminated by contested judgment is shown below.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`by Contested Judgment
`
`
`Atlas
`Barker
`Bryson
`Bush
`Clark
`Craven
`Crone
`Dyk
`Giblin
`Gilstrap
`Heartfield
`Johnson
`Jordan
`Kernodle
`Love
`Mazzant
`Mitchell
`Payne
`Schell
`Schneider
`Schroeder
`Truncale
`0
`
`16.8
`
`38.9
`
`9.9
`
`24.9
`
`23.9
`
`28.3
`
`21.9
`
`22.1
`
`5
`
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`35
`
`40
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case and Judgment Outcomes
`The number of outcomes by judgment, the patentee win rate for those outcomes, and the average time to
`termination for those outcomes for this court are shown below, broken out by type of outcome.
`
`Number of Judgments
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Total
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`156
`
`6
`
`31
`
`8
`
`50
`
`36
`
`2
`
`8
`
`14
`
`1
`
`32.1
`
`50.0
`
`54.8
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`61.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`22.7
`
`38.8
`
`21.3
`
`16.0
`
`15.7
`
`27.8
`
`6.8
`
`37.5
`
`23.7
`
`84.2
`
`Detailed information about these cases, broken out by type of outcome, is shown in the following sections.
`
`26
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`The number of Bench Trial outcomes and the average time to termination by that outcome are shown below
`for the district and for each judge who has at least one such outcome.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`For Bench Trial
`
`Bryson
`
`25.8
`
`Gilstrap
`
`64.6
`
`Payne
`
`22.8
`
`Schroeder
`
`32.5
`
`0
`
`10
`
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`70
`
`27
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`District
`
`Bryson
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Payne
`
`Schroeder
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`38.8
`
`25.8
`
`64.6
`
`22.8
`
`32.5
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`1
`
`28
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Bench Trial
`
`20
`
`26
`
`27
`
`33
`Month of Litigation
`
`57
`
`73
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Bench Trial
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Bench Trial
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`29
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`Case Number
`2:15cv01546
`
`Judge
`Payne
`
`2:15cv01455
`
`Bryson
`
`2:17cv00101
`
`Payne
`
`2:16cv00044
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:12cv00207
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Patentee
`
`Patentee
`
`Patentee
`
`2:15cv01366
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 19.2
`
` 25.8
`
` 26.5
`
` 32.5
`
` 56.9
`
` 72.2
`
`Case Name
`GeoDynamics, Incorporated
`v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc.
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`et al
`Red Rock Analytics, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co.
`Ltd. et al
`ProStrakan, Inc. et al v.
`Actavis Laboratories UT,
`Inc. et al
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
`et al
`Personalized Media
`Communications, LLC v.
`Apple, Inc.
`
`30
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`The number of Consent Judgment outcomes and the average time to termination by that outcome are shown
`below for the district and for each judge who has at least one such outcome.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`For Consent Judgment
`
`Bryson
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Jordan
`
`8.6
`
`Mazzant
`
`Schroeder
`
`28.2
`
`19.1
`
`21.8
`
`34.1
`
`0
`
`5
`
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`30
`
`35
`
`31
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`District
`
`Bryson
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Jordan
`
`Mazzant
`
`Schroeder
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`21.3
`
`28.2
`
`19.1
`
`8.6
`
`21.8
`
`34.1
`
`31
`
`1
`
`21
`
`2
`
`2
`
`5
`
`32
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Consent Judgment
`
`15
`
`16
`14
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`22
`
`29
`
`24
`
`49
`
`58
`
`70
`
`18
`
`2
`
`7
`
`10
`
`13
`
`12
`
`9
`
`5
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Consent Judgment
`
`54.8
`
`45.2
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`33
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`The number of Default Judgment outcomes and the average time to termination by that outcome are shown
`below for the district and for each judge who has at least one such outcome.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`For Default Judgment
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Mazzant
`
`Schroeder
`
`16.6
`
`15.1
`
`15.0
`
`0
`
`2
`
`14
`12
`10
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`16
`
`18
`
`34
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`District
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Mazzant
`
`Schroeder
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`16.0
`
`16.6
`
`15.1
`
`15.0
`
`8
`
`5
`
`2
`
`1
`
`35
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Default Judgment
`
`3
`
`13
`
`12
`
`16
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`19
`
`36
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Default Judgment
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Default Judgment
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`0.0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`36
`
`

`

`Improper Venue
`
`The number of Improper Venue outcomes and the average time to termination by that outcome are shown
`below for the district and for each judge who has at least one such outcome.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`For Improper Venue
`
`Gilstrap
`
`12.0
`
`Schroeder
`
`9.3
`
`0
`
`10
`8
`6
`4
`2
`Months from Case Filing
`
`12
`
`37
`
`

`

`Improper Venue
`
`District
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Schroeder
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`10.8
`
`12.0
`
`9.3
`
`9
`
`5
`
`4
`
`38
`
`

`

`Improper Venue
`
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Improper Venue
`
`6
`
`10
`
`7
`
`12
`Month of Litigation
`
`14
`
`16
`
`18
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`39
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`The number of Involuntary Dismissal outcomes and the average time to termination by that outcome are
`shown below for the district and for each judge who has at least one such outcome.
`
`Average Time to Termination
`For Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Bryson
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Jordan
`
`9.2
`
`9.9
`
`14.4
`
`Schroeder
`
`17.1
`
`0
`
`2
`
`14
`12
`10
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`16
`
`18
`
`40
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`District
`
`Bryson
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Jordan
`
`Schroeder
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`15.7
`
`9.2
`
`14.4
`
`9.9
`
`17.1
`
`50
`
`2
`
`17
`
`1
`
`30
`
`41
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Involuntary Dismissal
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`14
`11
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`37
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`47
`
`21
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`10
`
`9
`
`7
`
`5
`
`12
`
`10
`
`02468
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Involuntary Dismissal
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`0.0
`
`
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`42
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Case Number
`2:19cv00106
`
`Judge
`Bryson
`
`2:18cv00300
`
`Gilstrap
`
`2:16cv01130
`
`Gilstrap
`
`2:19cv00316
`2:17cv00339
`
`Gilstrap
`Gilstrap
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 3.8
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Case Name
`First-Class Monitoring, LLC
`v. United Parcel Service of
`America, Inc.
`Chapterhouse, LLC v.
`Shopify, Inc.
`Bartonfalls LLC v. Turner
`Broadcasting System, Inc.
`Kutt v. Apple Inc et al
`Mantis Communications,
`LLC v. Papa Murphy's
`Holdings, Inc et al
`Mantis Communications,
`LLC v. Culver Franchising
`System, Inc.
`Mantis Communications,
`LLC v. Edible Arrangements,
`LLC et al
`Mantis Communications,
`LLC v. Regal Cinemas, Inc
`et al
`Mantis Communications,
`LLC v. Baskin-Robbins
`Franchising, LLC et al
`My Health, Inc. v.
`MyNetDiary, Inc.
`Cave Consulting Group, Inc.
`v. Health Care Service
`Corporation
`Network Architecture
`Innovations LLC v. CC
`Network Inc.
`EMG Technology, LLC v.
`Etsy, Inc.
`Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. v.
`Peloton Interactive, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Amazon.Com, Inc., et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Google Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Home Box Office, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Hulu
`LLC
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Netflix, Inc.
`Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc.
`v. Intellicentrics, Inc. et al
`Integrated Technological
`Systems, Inc. v. First
`Internet Bank of Indiana
`Falkon Treasures LLC v.
`Adidas America, Inc.
`
` 4.7
`
` 5.9
`
` 6.1
` 7.0
`
` 7.0
`
` 7.0
`
` 7.0
`
` 7.0
`
` 7.7
`
` 7.8
`
` 8.0
`
` 9.0
`
` 9.0
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.9
`
` 10.0
`
` 10.0
`
`2:17cv00324
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:17cv00325
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:17cv00327
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:17cv00328
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:16cv00866
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:17cv00344
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:16cv00914
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv00484
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:20cv00382
`
`Gilstrap
`
`2:16cv00570
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00571
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00572
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00573
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00574
`
`Schroeder
`
`4:20cv00448
`
`Jordan
`
`2:16cv00417
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`2:16cv00653
`
`Gilstrap
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`43
`
`

`

`6:16cv00463
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv00465
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00466
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00467
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00468
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00470
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00471
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00544
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00535
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00536
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00530
`
`Schroeder
`
`6:16cv00095
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00152
`
`Gilstrap
`
`2:16cv00858
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:17cv00523
`
`Bryson
`
`2:16cv00741
`
`Schroeder
`
`2:16cv00682
`
`Gilstrap
`
`2:16cv00393
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01058
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01061
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01066
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01068
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01062
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:16cv01071
`
`Schroeder
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.1
`
` 10.2
`
` 10.3
`
` 10.3
`
` 10.3
`
` 13.0
`
` 13.2
`
` 13.9
`
` 14.6
`
` 15.4
`
` 16.1
`
` 20.9
`
` 36.8
`
` 36.8
`
` 36.8
`
` 36.8
`
` 38.5
`
` 38.6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Medical Information
`Technology, Inc. d/b/a
`Meditech
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Picis, Inc.,
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`QuadraMed Corporation
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. N.
`Harris Computer Corp.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`OptumInsight, Inc. et al
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Netsmart Technologies, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`Practice Fusion, Inc.
`My Health, Inc. v. DeVilbiss
`Healthcare, LLC
`My Health, Inc. v. ALR
`Technologies, Inc.
`My Health, Inc. v. InTouch
`Technologies, Inc.
`BSG Tech LLC v.
`BuySeasons, Inc.
`P&RO Solutions Group,
`Inc. v. CiM Maintenance,
`Inc.
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. et
`al v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big
`Fish Games, Inc.
`IDB Ventures, LLC v. DSW
`Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`ADP, LLC
`Umbanet, Inc. v. Epsilon
`Data Management, LLC
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v.
`AVG Technologies USA,
`Inc.
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. ALDO
`U.S., Inc.
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. Fry's
`Electronics, Incorporated
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. O'Reilly
`Automotive, Inc.
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. SHOP
`MA, Inc.
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. Gander
`Mountain Company
`Semantic Search
`Technologies LLC v. The
`Pep Boys - Manny, Moe
`& Ja