LegalMetric District Report
`Texas Western District Court
`in Patent Cases
`January 2018-August 2022
`
`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.
`
`Page 1 of 83
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1020
`GOOGLE v. JAWBONE
`IPR2022-01124
`
`

`

`Overview
`
`This report covers the patent cases of the active judges in the Texas Western District Court as of August 2022
`(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
`
`Patentee Overall Win
`Rate
`Acc. Infr. Overall Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`2019
`
`2021
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`31.4
`14.7
`55.6
`
`55.6
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`Accused Win Rate
`68.6
`85.3
`44.4
`
`44.4
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`
`16.7
`
`86.0
`
`13.6
`7.1
`
`0
`
`34.5
`20
`
`66.4
`
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`80
`
`100
`
`Larger Version in Body of Report
`
`Number
`2838
`899
`1939
`51
`34
`
`909
`
`Total Cases
`Open Cases
`Closed Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgmnts
`Trials
`Bench
`Jury
`
`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
`7.7
`21.4
`25.1
`33.5
`
`All Cases
`Judgments
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`33.5
`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:
`$8,577,968
`Median:
`$969,433
`
`Appeals:
`
`Total
`
`Number of Appeals Complete Affirmance Rate
`41
`31.3
`
`Page 2 of 83
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Win Rate
`
`22.2
`
`100.0
`
`48.0
`
`100.0
`
`30.8
`
`44.1
`
`50.0
`
`Claim Construction
`176
`
`9P
`
`1S
`
`reliminary Injunction
`
`tay Pending CBM
`Rev.
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`25
`tay Pending Reexam
`
`4S
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`TRO
`
`Win Rates on Contested Motions
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`48.0
`
`50.0
`
`44.1
`
`30.8
`
`22.2
`
`
`
`Sum mary Judgment
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Transfer
`
`TRO
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Claim Construction
`Preliminary Injunction
`Stay Pending CBM Rev
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`TRO
`
`176
`
`9
`
`1
`
`25
`
`4
`
`60
`
`153
`
`6
`
`TRO
`6
`Transfer
`153
`
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`60
`
`Page 3 of 83
`
`

`

`Alice Motions: The number of Alice motions (if any) and win rates on those motions are shown below, by motion type.
`
`Total
`Texas Western
`
`Total
`Win Rate
`35.9
`
`Number of Decisions
`39
`
`Total
`Albright
`
`Ezra
`
`Pitman
`
`Smith
`
`Yeakel
`
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Summary Judgment
`
`35.9
`
`6.7
`
`6.7
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`41.7
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`83.3
`
`80.0
`
`100.0
`
`40.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`39
`
`15
`
`15
`
`1
`
`1
`
`12
`
`7
`
`5
`
`6
`
`5
`
`1
`
`5
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 83
`
`

`

`Home Field Advantage?
`The plaintiff and defendant contested win rates in Texas Western 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
`
`72.7
`
`66.7
`
`83.3
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local
`- Plaintiff Away
`
`0.0
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`100.0
`
`27.3
`
`33.3
`
`16.7
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Fraction of Contested Judgments, by Party Location
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`18.8%
`Local - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`3.1%
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`9.4%
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`68.8%
`
`Page 5 of 83
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Division
`The breakdown of patent cases by division is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Total Patent Cases, by Division
`
`Austin
`336
`Del
`Rio
`l Paso
`
`1
`
`3E
`
`9M
`
`idland
`
`San Antonio
`25
`
`Waco
`2464
`
`Page 6 of 83
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Case Outcome
`The breakdown of patent cases by case outcome is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Case Outcomes by Type
`
`Want of Prosecution
`0.1%
`Transfer
`6.1%
`Summary Judgment
`0.5%
`Remand to State
`Court
`
`0.1%
`Other Termination
`0.5%
`Other Settlement
`0.8%
`MDL Transfer
`0.2%
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`0.1%
`Jury Verdict
`0.5%
`Involuntary Dismissal
`0.7%
`Intra-District Transfer
`4.7%
`Improper Venue
`0.7%
`Default Judgment
`0.1%
`Consolidated
`0.9%
`Consent Judgment
`0.8%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`83.5%
`
`Page 7 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`2,519
`
`800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800
`
`2 0 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0
`
`
`
`Albright
`
`Biery
`
`Briones
`
`Cardone
`
`Counts
`
`Ezra
`
`Garcia
`
`Guaderrama
`
`Junell
`
`Lamberth
`
`Manske
`
`Martinez
`
`Mathy
`
`Montalvo
`
`Moses
`
`Nowlin
`
`Pitman
`
`103
`
`5 1
`
`5
`
`0 1
`
`0
`
`Pulliam
`
`Rodriguez
`
`Smith
`
`Sparks
`
`Yeakel
`0
`
`167
`400
`
`Page 8 of 83
`
`

`

`District
`Albright
`Biery
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`
`All Cases
`2838
`
`2519
`
`Last Three Years
`2547
`
`2362
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`5
`
`5
`
`3
`
`2
`
`103
`
`5
`
`15
`
`10
`
`167
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`4
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`77
`
`3
`
`6
`
`0
`
`86
`
`Page 9 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`45.5
`
`24.3
`
`
`
`Austin
`
`Del Rio
`
`El Paso
`
`0.0
`Midland
`
`San Antonio
`
`Waco
`
`Contested Patentee Win Rate
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`Austin
`
`
`
`Del Rio
`
`El Paso
`
`0.0
`Midland
`
`San Antonio
`
`Waco
`
`15.4
`
`Patentee Trial Win Rate
`
`100
`
`50
`
`
`
`Austin
`
`Del Rio
`
`El Paso
`
`Midland
`
`San Antonio
`
`Waco
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Percentage
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Plaintiff Win Rate/
`No. of Judgments
`31.4
`51
`
`45.5
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`24.3
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`37
`
`District
`Austin
`Midland
`San Antonio
`Waco
`
`Contested Win Rate/
`Number Contested
`14.7
`34
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`15.4
`
`6
`
`1
`
`1
`
`26
`
`District
`Austin
`Midland
`San Antonio
`Waco
`
`Trial Win Rate/
`Number of Trials
`55.6
`9
`
`100.0
`
`50.0
`
`1
`
`8
`
`District
`San Antonio
`Waco
`
`Page 10 of 83
`
`

`

`Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`50.0
`
`27.3
`
`
`
`Austin
`
`Del Rio
`
`El Paso
`
`Midland
`
`0.0
`San
`Antonio
`
`Waco
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`32.6
`
`57.9
`
`46.6
`
`15.7
`
`
`
`Austin
`
`Del Rio
`
`El Paso
`
`Midland
`
`San
`Antonio
`
`Waco
`
`Percentage
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Complete Aff. Rate/
`Number of Appeals
`31.3
`16
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`27.3
`
`4
`
`1
`
`11
`
`District
`Austin
`San Antonio
`Waco
`
`Time to Term./
`Number of Judgmts.
`21.4
`51
`
`32.6
`
`57.9
`
`46.6
`
`15.7
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`37
`
`District
`Austin
`Midland
`San Antonio
`Waco
`
`Page 11 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`2.6%
`
`
`97.4%
`
`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.
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Number of Judgments Overall Win Rate Contested Win Rate Trial Win Rate
`15
`60.0
`
`2
`
`14
`
`9
`
`1
`
`1
`
`9
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`55.6
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`55.6
`
`0.0
`
`55.6
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`Page 12 of 83
`
`

`

`Win Rates by Year
`The following chart shows the patentee overall win rate and contested win rate for the active judges in the
`Texas Western District Court by year. The overall patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide overall win rate of 54.5%, and the contested patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide patentee contested win rate of 21.3%. 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
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`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 Western District Court is shown in the following chart:
`
`Terminations by Judgment Each Year: Currently
`Active Judges
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Page 13 of 83
`
`

`

`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.
`
`2,018
`2,019
`2,020
`2,021
`2,022
`
`Patentee Wins
`2
`
` Total Decisions
`4
`
` Patentee Win Rate Acc. Infr. Win Rate
`50.0
`50.0
`
`2
`
`1
`
`3
`
`8
`
`6
`
`11
`
`12
`
`18
`
`33.3
`
`9.1
`
`25.0
`
`44.4
`
`66.7
`
`90.9
`
`75.0
`
`55.6
`
`Page 14 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`0
`
`0.0
`
`23.1
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`20
`
`40.0
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`Page 15 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`0.0
`Sparks
`0.0
`Yeakel
`0
`
`14.3
`
`100.0
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`Page 16 of 83
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Total
`Albright
`Ezra
`Pitman
`Rodriguez
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`
`Overall Win Rate Number of Judgments Contested Win Rate Contested Judgments
`31.4
`51
`14.7
`34
`
`23.1
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`40.0
`
`39
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`5
`
`14.3
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`28
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Page 17 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`93
`Ronald Reagan
`117
`George W. Bush
`430
`George Bush
`192
`
`Barack Obama
`126
`
`Donald J. Trump
`2,526
`
`Barack Obama
`Donald J. Trump
`George Bush
`George W. Bush
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`3.6%
`72.5%
`5.5%
`12.3%
`3.4%
`2.7%
`100.0%
`
`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.
`
`Win Rates by Nominating President
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`
`Barack
`Obama
`
`Donald J.
`Trump
`
`George
`Bush
`
`George W.
`Bush
`
`Ronald
`Reagan
`
`William J.
`Clinton
`
`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).
`
`Total
`Overall Win
`Rate
`
`# of
`Judgments
`
`Contested Win
`Rate
`
`# of Contested
`Judgments
`
`Trial Win
`Rate
`
`# of Trial
`Jugements
`
`Barack Obama
`Donald J. Trump
`George Bush
`George W. Bush
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`
`33.3
`
`25.0
`
`56.3
`
`35.7
`
`50.0
`
`57.1
`
`12
`
`40
`
`32
`
`28
`
`24
`
`21
`
`0.0
`
`17.2
`
`33.3
`
`11.1
`
`7.7
`
`16.7
`
`8
`
`29
`
`21
`
`18
`
`13
`
`6
`
`55.6
`
`83.3
`
`33.3
`
`100.0
`
`33.3
`
`0
`
`9
`
`6
`
`3
`
`1
`
`3
`
`Page 18 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`33.5
`
`21.4
`
`25.1
`
`7.7
`
`All Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Judgment
`
`Contested
`Judgment Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Trial
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`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
`
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`45
`
`40
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Page 19 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`0
`
`18.0
`
`86.0
`
`66.4
`
`43.5
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`Page 20 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`15
`17
`
`21
`
`3
`
`91
`
`118
`
`14
`
`9231
`
`919
`
`5
`
`1
`
`0
`
`200
`
`400
`
`1,620
`
`800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
`600
`Number of Cases
`
`
`
`Bench Trial
`Confirmation of Arbitration Award
`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
`Remand to State Court
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`Average Time to Termination by
`Outcome
`
`
`
`Bench Trial
`Confirmation of Arbitration Award
`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
`Remand to State Court
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`0
`
`5
`
`5.4
`
`6.7
`
`13.0
`
`10.8
`
`15.8
`
`21.4
`
`12.0
`9.1
`10.6
`8.9
`10.0
`10.3
`12.9
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`7.1
`
`33.5
`
`28.6
`
`30
`
`35
`
`Page 21 of 83
`
`

`

`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 Western 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
`
`320
`
`280
`
`240
`
`200
`
`160
`
`120
`
`80
`
`40
`
`0
`
`Number of Terminations
`
`Page 22 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`0
`
`0.0
`
`37.7
`
`7.3
`5.1
`
`11.0
`
`5.1
`
`5.4
`
`11.4
`
`7.5
`
`14.2
`10.6
`
`50.1
`
`8.6
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`Page 23 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`0
`
`86.0
`
`16.7
`
`13.6
`
`7.1
`
`66.4
`
`34.5
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`Page 24 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Albright
`Biery
`Briones
`Cardone
`Counts
`Ezra
`Garcia
`Guaderrama
`Junell
`Lamberth
`Manske
`Martinez
`Mathy
`Montalvo
`Moses
`Nowlin
`Pitman
`Pulliam
`Rodriguez
`Smith
`Sparks
`Yeakel
`0
`
`18.0
`
`86.0
`
`66.4
`
`43.5
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`Page 25 of 83
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Total
`Consent Judgment
`Default Judgment
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Jury Verdict
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`Other Termination
`Summary Judgment
`
`Number of Judgments
`51
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`31.4
`
`Average Time to Termination
`21.4
`
`15
`
`2
`
`14
`
`9
`
`1
`
`1
`
`9
`
`60.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`55.6
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`13.0
`
`21.4
`
`15.8
`
`33.5
`
`16.3
`
`57.9
`
`28.6
`
`Detailed information about these cases, broken out by type of outcome, is shown in the following sections.
`
`Page 26 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`Albright
`
`Pitman
`
`13.5
`
`13.6
`
`Rodriguez
`
`7.1
`
`Yeakel
`
`12.2
`
`0
`
`2
`
`10
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`12
`
`14
`
`Page 27 of 83
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`District
`Albright
`Pitman
`Rodriguez
`Yeakel
`
`Average Time to Termination
`13.0
`
`Number of Cases
`15
`
`13.5
`
`13.6
`
`7.1
`
`12.2
`
`10
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`Page 28 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`6
`
`8
`
`7
`
`13
`
`14
`12
`Month of Litigation
`
`15
`
`25
`
`23
`
`012345
`
`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
`
`60.0
`
`40.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Page 29 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`Albright
`
`13.2
`
`Yeakel
`
`29.5
`
`0
`
`4
`
`24
`20
`16
`12
`8
`Months from Case Filing
`
`28
`
`32
`
`Page 30 of 83
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`District
`Albright
`Yeakel
`
`Average Time to Termination
`21.4
`
`Number of Cases
`2
`
`13.2
`
`29.5
`
`1
`
`1
`
`Page 31 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`14
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`30
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`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
`
`Page 32 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`Albright
`
`10.8
`
`Sparks
`
`9.6
`
`0
`
`2
`
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`10
`
`12
`
`Page 33 of 83
`
`

`

`Improper Venue
`
`District
`Albright
`Sparks
`
`Average Time to Termination
`10.8
`
`Number of Cases
`13
`
`10.8
`
`9.6
`
`12
`
`1
`
`Page 34 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`14
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`4
`
`3.5
`
`3
`
`2.5
`
`2
`
`1.5
`
`1
`
`0.5
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Page 35 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`Albright
`
`8.7
`
`Yeakel
`
`0
`
`10
`
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`50
`
`58.5
`
`60
`
`Page 36 of 83
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`District
`Albright
`Yeakel
`
`Average Time to Termination
`15.8
`
`Number of Cases
`14
`
`8.7
`
`58.5
`
`12
`
`2
`
`Page 37 of 83
`
`

`

`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
`
`4
`
`5
`
`9
`
`12
`
`10
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`18
`
`59
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`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
`
`Page 38 of 83
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Case Number
`6:19cv00612
`
`6:19cv00617
`6:19cv00171
`
`6:19cv00172
`6:19cv00565
`
`Judge
`Albright
`
`Albright
`Albright
`
`Albright
`Albright
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:21cv01015
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:19cv00608
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:19cv00605
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:19cv00594
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:21cv00677
`
`Albright
`
`6:21cv00186
`
`Albright
`
`6:20cv00666
`
`Albright
`
`1:14cv00810
`
`Yeakel
`
`1:14cv00813
`
`Yeakel
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 3.9
`
` 3.9
` 3.9
`
` 4.6
` 4.8
`
` 8.7
`
` 9.7
`
` 9.8
`
` 9.8
`
` 11.3
`
` 16.4
`
` 17.1
`
` 58.5
`
` 58.5
`
`Case Name
`De La Vega v. Microsoft
`Corporation
`De La Vega v. Google LLC
`Arunachalam v. Exxon Mobil
`Corporation et al
`Arunachalam v. Intuit, Inc.
`Wilco Marsh Buggies &
`Draglines, Inc. v. EIK
`Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
` SIGHTLINE PAYMENTS
`LLC, v. EVERI HOLDINGS
`INC et al
`Lighthouse Consulting
`Group, LLC v. BOK
`Financial
`Lighthouse Consulting
`Group, LLC v. TIAA, FBS
`Holdings, Inc.
`Lighthouse Consulting
`Group, LLC v. BB&T
`Corporation
`Grecia Estate Holdings LLC
`v. Facebook, Inc.
`Optical Licensing, LLC v.
`Arrow Electronics, Inc.
`Health Discovery
`Corporation v. Intel
`Corporation
`Via Vadis, LLC et al v.
`Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
`Via Vadis, LLC et al v.
`Amazon.Com, Inc.
`
`Page 39 of 83
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`The number of Jury Verdict 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 Jury Verdict
`
`Albright
`
`27.0
`
`Ezra
`
`86.0
`
`0
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`Page 40 of 83
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`District
`Albright
`Ezra
`
`Average Time to Termination
`33.5
`
`Number of Cases
`9
`
`27.0
`
`86.0
`
`8
`
`1
`
`Page 41 of 83
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`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 Jury Verdict
`
`23
`
`26
`
`25
`
`27
`Month of Litigation
`
`28
`
`31
`
`86
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`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 Jury Verdict
`
`55.6
`
`44.4
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Page 42 of 83
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`Case Number
`6:19cv00513
`
`Judge
`Albright
`
`6:21cv00511
`
`Albright
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:20cv00277
`
`Albright
`
`Patentee
`
`6:18cv00308
`
`Albright
`
`6:20cv00101
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:20cv00075
`
`Albright
`
`Patentee
`
`6:19cv00044
`
`Albright
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`6:20cv00018
`
`Albright
`
`Patentee
`
`5:15cv00406
`
`Ezra
`
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 22.4
`
` 24.6
`
` 25.8
`
` 26.2
`
` 27.7
`
` 27.8
`
` 30.5
`
` 30.6
`
` 86.0
`
`Case Name
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR
`Corporation
`Freshub, Inc. et al v.
`Amazon.Com Inc. et al
`NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine
`Energy Service, Inc.
`MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku,
`Inc.
`Profectus Technology LLC v.
`Google LLC
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google
`LLC
`ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku,
`Inc.
`Jiaxing Super Lighting
`Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd.
`et al v. CH Lighting
`Technology Co., Ltd. et al
`M-I LLC v. FPUSA, LLC
`
`Page 43 of 83
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`The number of Lack of Jurisdiction 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 Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Albright
`
`12.0
`
`0
`
`2
`
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`10
`
`12
`
`Page 44 of 83
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`District
`Albright
`
`Average Time to Termination
`12.0
`
`Number of Cases
`2
`
`12.0
`
`2
`
`Page 45 of 83
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`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 Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`8
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`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 Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`0.0
`
`
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Page 46 of 83
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Case Number
`6:21cv00206
`
`Judge
`Albright
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 16.3
`
`Case Name
`EMA Electromechanics, Inc.
`v. Siemens Corporation et al
`
`Page 47 of 83
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`The number of Other Termination 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 Other Termination
`
`Albright
`
`15.2
`
`Pitman
`
`0.9
`
`Yeakel
`
`0.8
`
`0
`
`2
`
`12
`10
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`14
`
`16
`
`Page 48 of 83
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`District
`Albright
`Pitman
`Yeakel
`
`Average Time to Termination
`8.9
`
`Number of Cases
`9
`
`15.2
`
`0.9
`
`0.8
`
`5
`
`3
`
`1
`
`Page 49 of 83
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`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 Other Termination
`
`1
`
`16
`
`2
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`58
`
`012345
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Other Termination
`
`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 Other Termination
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`0.0
`
`
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Page 50 of 83
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`Case Number
`7:15cv00097
`
`Judge
`Albright
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 57.9
`
`Case Name
`Finalrod IP, LLC et al v.
`John Crane, Inc. et al
`
`Page 51 of 83
`
`

`

`Remand to State Court
`
`The number of Remand to State Court 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 Remand to State Court
`
`Yeakel
`
`10.0
`
`0
`
`8
`6
`4
`2
`Months from Case Filing
`
`10
`
`Page 52 of 83
`
`

`

`Remand to State Court
`
`District
`Yeakel
`
`Average Time to Termination
`10.0
`
`Number of Cases
`1
`
`10.0
`
`1
`
`Page 53 of 83
`
`

`

`Remand to State Court
`
`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 Remand to State Court
`
`