`
`Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern District of California | White & Case LLP
`
`Publications & Events
`
`18 MAR 2020
`
`Alert
`
`Technology Newsflash
`
`Henry Y. Huang
`
`Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the
`Northern District of California
`
`White & Case Technology Newsflash
`
`This update briefly summarizes 2019 trends in patent litigation from the Northern District of
`California, which remains an important and frequent venue for technology litigation.
`
`Following the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland, patent litigation began to shift away
`from the Eastern District of Texas. While that court saw more than 2,500 patent filings in 2015 (more
`than any other district), that has changed as new filings in 2019 decreased to 333 cases. The District
`of Delaware received more new patent cases since 2016 and now leads all venues, with 1,001 filings
`in 2019. The Western District of Texas has also seen a sizeable influx, with 279 new cases last year
`and more than 150 new cases this year so far.
`
`*Excerpt from Lex Machina Patent Litigation Report, February 2020.
`
`Meanwhile, patent plaintiffs are still initiating cases in the Northern District of California. As shown
`above, the District was one of the top five venues for new cases—as it was in 2010 and 2015. New
`patent filings in the District declined from 2018 (326 cases) to 2019 (240 cases), but in 2020 they are
`already on pace to exceed last year’s total.
`
`https://www.whitecase.com/publications/silicon-valleys-home-court-patent-trends-northern-district-california
`
`1/3
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2006
`Page 1
`
`
`
`5/6/22, 11:19 AM
`
`Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern District of California | White & Case LLP
`
`* Statistics from Lex Machina, March 2020.
`
`The Northern District of California continues to distribute cases relatively evenly among its judges,
`with no individual judge receiving more than 22 of the 240 new filings in 2019. This contrasts with
`other districts where distribution of cases is more concentrated among certain judges (such as
`Judge Albright in W.D. Tex. or Judge Gilstrap in E.D. Tex.). None of the ten judges with the most
`new patent cases in 2019 serves in the Northern District of California. This relative distribution of
`filings will continue to affect strategies for venue and transfer.
`
`While not as fast as some patent-heavy districts, the Northern District of California has been
`resolving cases and reaching key milestones over the past decade about as quickly as national
`averages. For cases terminated between 2010 and 2019, the District’s median times to certain
`milestones are comparable to those nationwide:
`
`Milestone
`
`N.D. Cal. (2010-19)
`
`All districts (2010-19)
`
`Summary judgment
`
`627 days
`
`Trial
`
`Termination
`
`861 days
`
`252 days
`
`639 days
`
`843 days
`
`228 days
`
`https://www.whitecase.com/publications/silicon-valleys-home-court-patent-trends-northern-district-california
`
`2/3
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2006
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern District of California | White & Case LLP
`5/6/22, 11:19 AM
`In 2019, the District continued its trend of granting most motions to stay pending inter partes review
`(IPR). According to Docket Navigator, nine of 13 such motions were granted, with one ruling
`deferred. This is consistent with its overall practice since 2013, where the majority of stay motions
`are granted.
`
`As to damages, total awards in the Northern District of California declined from roughly US$43.5
`million in 2018 (across 30 cases) to about US$13.0 million in 2019 (across 14 cases). Given the
`relatively small number of awards, and the delay between filing and any award, it is hard to draw
`conclusions about the District’s propensity for granting damages. The annual increases in new
`cases since 2016 could lead to greater numbers of upcoming awards. The District’s most recent
`Patent Local Rules also require disclosure of damages contentions, in addition to typical
`infringement and invalidity disclosures.
`
`
`
`Any views expressed in this publication are strictly those of the authors and should not be attributed
`in any way to White & Case LLP.
`
`This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This
`publication is protected by copyright.
`© 2020 White & Case LLP
`
`https://www.whitecase.com/publications/silicon-valleys-home-court-patent-trends-northern-district-california
`
`3/3
`
`GOOGLE V. ECOFACTOR
`IPR2022-00538
`Exhibit 2006
`Page 3
`
`