LegalMetric Individual Judge Report
`Judge Leo Sorokin
`Patent Cases
`June 2014 to April 2023
`
`This report contains confidential and proprietary information of LegalMetric, Inc.
`
`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.
`
`NIKE-1048
`p. 1
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Total Cases and Judgments
`Judge Sorokin was appointed to the bench on June 10, 2014. This judge has been assigned 41 patent cases. Of
`these, 40 cases have been terminated. There have been judgments in favor of a party (includes consent and
`default judgments) in 5 case(s). The patent owner prevailed in 20.0% of these cases (while the accused infringer
`prevailed in 80.0% of these cases). (Note: In those instances where the judge previously served as a magistrate,
`earlier rulings issued while the judge was a magistrate are included in this report.)
`
`Nation
`
`Sorokin
`
`Total
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`Pendency (All Cases)
`Judgment Pendency
`Contested Pendency
`Trial Pendency
`
`54.7
`21.5
`62.2
`12.3
`21.3
`27.2
`37.3
`
`20.0
`20.0
`50.0
`12.3
`22.9
`22.9
`46.2
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`Pendency (All Cases)
`Judgment Pendency
`Contested Pendency
`Trial Pendency
`
`20.0
`20.0
`50.0
`12.3
`22.9
`22.9
`46.2
`
`Color Scheme: Red in the table above indicates a win rate more than 10% more favorable to the ACCUSED INFRINGER
`than the national average, 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 than the national average, 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 than the national average, 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.
`
`Number of Cases Filed, by Year
`
`7
`
`6
`
`5
`
`5
`
`4
`
`2
`
`3 3
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`0
`0 0 0 0 0 0 0
`0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
`1992
`1994
`1996
`1998
`2000
`2002
`2004
`2006
`2008
`2010
`2012
`2014
`2016
`2018
`2020
`2022
`1991
`1993
`1995
`1997
`1999
`2001
`2003
`2005
`2007
`2009
`2011
`2013
`2015
`2017
`2019
`2021
`2023
`
`0
`
`01234567
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The number of patent
`cases assigned to
`Judge Sorokin by year
`is shown in the chart
`to the right. Note that
`this includes cases
`filed in previous years
`and reassigned to this
`judge, where
`applicable.
`
`p. 2
`
`

`

`Number of Cases Decided, by Year
`
`7
`
`7
`
`6
`
`4
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`2
`
`The number of patent
`cases decided by
`Judge Sorokin by year
`is shown in the chart
`to the left. This can
`include cases decided
`earlier which are
`subsequently assigned
`to this judge for
`post-decision rulings.
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`0 0
`0
`0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
`
`1992
`1994
`1996
`1998
`2000
`2002
`2004
`2006
`2008
`2010
`2012
`2014
`2016
`2018
`2020
`2022
`1991
`1993
`1995
`1997
`1999
`2001
`2003
`2005
`2007
`2009
`2011
`2013
`2015
`2017
`2019
`2021
`2023
`
`01234567
`
`Number of Cases
`
`ne- and Five-Year Percentage of Cases for This Judge
`
`8.6
`
`8.7
`
`Cases Filed in Last Five
`Years
`Cases Filed in Last Year
`
`10
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4
`
`2
`
`0
`
`Percentage of Total Cases FiledO
`
`Fraction of Cases Assigned to
`This Judge, By Court: The
`fraction of cases assigned to
`this judge by court (and division
`if applicable) is shown in the
`chart to the left and in the table
`below. The figures are further
`broken out by percentage of
`cases filed in the previous five
`years and by percentage of
`cases filed in the previous year.
`
`Boston
`
`0.0
`0.0
`Springfield
`Court
`
`0.0
`0.0
`Worcester
`
`Total
`Percentage of Cases Filed in
`Last Five Years
`7.8
`
`Percentage of Cases Filed in
`Last Year
`7.4
`
`8.6
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`8.7
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`Total
`Boston
`Springfield
`Worcester
`
`p. 3
`
`

`

`Patent Case Outcomes for Judge Sorokin: The chart below shows the breakdown, by case outcome, for
`closed cases of this judge.
`
`Case Outcomes for Judge
`
`Want of Prosecution
`2.5%
`
`Bench Trial
`2.5%
`Consolidated
`5.0%
`Involuntary Dismissal
`7.5%
`Jury Verdict
`2.5%
`Other Settlement
`2.5%
`Other Termination
`2.5%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`67.5%
`
`Transfer
`7.5%
`
`Total
`
`Total
`Bench Trial
`Consolidated
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Jury Verdict
`Other Settlement
`Other Termination
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`40
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`27
`
`1
`
`p. 4
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Contested Judgments
`There have been 5 contested judgments in these cases (does not include consent and default judgments). The
`patent owner prevailed in 20.0% of these cases, while the accused infringer prevailed in 80.0% of these cases.
`These figures are compared to the corresponding nationwide numbers below. In addition, the patentee
`contested win rate for the judge by year is shown in the second chart below.
`
`Contested Win Rates, Judge v. Nation
`
`78.5
`
`80.0
`
`Nation
`Sorokin
`
`21.5
`
`20.0
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`p. 5
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Trials
`There have been 2 terminations by trial in these cases (includes both bench and jury trials). The patent owner
`prevailed in 50.0% of these case, while the accused infringer prevailed in 50.0% of these cases. Trials on which
`judgment has not been entered are not included in these figures. These figures are compared to the
`corresponding nationwide numbers below.
`
`Trial Win Rates, Judge v. Nation
`
`62.2
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`37.8
`
`Nation
`Sorokin
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`p. 6
`
`

`

`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
`
`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
`George Bush
`Jimmy Carter
`Joseph R. Biden
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`14.8%
`9.9%
`11.0%
`0.5%
`30.1%
`33.8%
`100.0%
`
`Barack Obama
`232
`George Bush
`156
`
`Jimmy Carter
`172
`oseph R. Biden
`
`8J
`
`William J. Clinton
`530
`
`Ronald Reagan
`472
`
`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).
`
`Win Rates by Nominating President
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`
`Barack
`Obama
`
`George Bush
`
`Jimmy
`Carter
`
`Joseph R.
`Biden
`
`Ronald
`Reagan
`
`William J.
`Clinton
`
`Total
`Overall Win
`Rate
`
`# of
`Judgments
`
`Contested Win
`Rate
`
`# of Contested
`Judgments
`
`Trial Win
`Rate
`
`# of Trial
`Judgements
`
`Barack Obama
`George Bush
`Jimmy Carter
`Joseph R. Biden
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`
`28.2
`
`52.1
`
`66.7
`
`53.1
`
`47.2
`
`39
`
`24
`
`33
`
`0
`
`97
`
`89
`
`16.7
`
`44.1
`
`44.4
`
`24.6
`
`28.3
`
`30
`
`17
`
`18
`
`0
`
`57
`
`60
`
`66.7
`
`81.3
`
`77.8
`
`53.3
`
`52.0
`
`6
`
`8
`
`9
`
`0
`
`15
`
`25
`
`p. 7
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Markman Rulings
`There were 4 Markman/claim construction rulings in these cases, not counting rulings made in connection with
`summary judgment motions. The average time from case filing to Markman rulings was 18.2 months. The
`variation from year to year is shown below. For more information, see the Markman/Claim Construction section
`below.
`
`Average Time to Markman Decision
`
`Judge
`Nation
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Overview:
`Summary Judgment
`There were 5 summary judgment rulings on contested motions in these cases. The win rate on these contested
`motions was 40.0%. In this report, a decision granting a motion in part and denying it in part is treated as 1/2 a
`decision for the movant. The variation from year to year is shown below. For more information, see the
`Summary Judgment Motion section below.
`Contested Summary Judgment Win Rates, by Year
`
`Judge
`Nation
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`Percentage
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`p. 8
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Stay Pending Reexamination and Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
`The win rate on motions to stay pending reexamination and on motions to stay pending Inter Partes Review for
`this judge are shown in the chart and table below. The table also includes the number of such motion decisions.
`In this report, a decision granting a motion in part and denying it in part is treated as 1/2 a decision for the
`movant. The variation from year to year is shown below. For more information, see the Stay Motion section
`below.
`
`Contested Stay Pending Reexam Win Rates, by Year
`
`Judge Stay Pending
`Reexam
`Nation Stay Pending
`Reexam
`Judge Stay Pending IPR
`
`Nation Stay Pending IPR
`
`
`
`2,013 2,014 2,015 2,016 2,017 2,018 2,019 2,020 2,021 2,022 2,023
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Total
`Stay Pending
`Reexam Win Rate
`
`# of Stay Pending
`Reexam Decisions
`0
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`Win Rate
`33.3
`
`# of Stay Pending IPR
`Decisions
`6
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`Total
`2015
`2016
`2019
`2022
`
`p. 9
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Time to Disposition-All Cases
`The average time from case filing to case disposition by Judge Sorokin is 12.3 months. The distribution of case
`terminations by month of litigation is shown below for the first 48 months of litigation. Cases still open at the
`end of 48 months, if any, are all lumped into month "49". Months with no closed cases are omitted from the
`chart.
`
`Distribution of All Closed Cases
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`42
`
`49
`
`01234567
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`Overview:
`Time to Disposition-Cases with Judgments
`The average time from case filing to case disposition by judgment in favor of a party (includes consent and
`default judgments) in these cases is 22.9 months. The distribution of judgments by month of litigation is shown
`below for the first 48 months of litigation. Cases still open at the end of 48 months, if any, are all lumped into
`month "49". Months with no closed cases are omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Cases Closed by Judgment
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`42
`
`49
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`p. 10
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Time to Disposition-Contested Judgments
`The average time from case filing to case disposition by contested judgment (does NOT include consent and
`default judgments) in these cases is 22.9 months. The distribution of judgments by month of litigation is shown
`below for the first 48 months of litigation. Cases still open at the end of 48 months, if any, are all lumped into
`month "49". Months with no closed cases are omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Cases Closed by Contested Judgment
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`42
`
`49
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`Overview:
`Time to Disposition-Trials
`The average time from case filing to case disposition by trial (includes bench and jury trials) in these cases is
`46.2 months. The distribution of judgments by month of litigation is shown below for the first 48 months of
`litigation. Cases still open at the end of 48 months, if any, are all lumped into month "49". Months with no
`closed cases are omitted from the chart.
`
`Distribution of Cases Closed by Trial
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`42
`
`49
`
`1
`
`0.5
`
`0
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`p. 11
`
`

`

`Case Outcomes with Judgments:
`The win rates for patent owners and accused infringers by various outcomes are shown below. Details for each
`outcome are set forth in the following sections of the report.
`
`Total
`Bench Trial
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Jury Verdict
`
`Patentee Win Rate Accused Infringer
`20.0
`80.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`Case Win Rates, by Outcome
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee
`Accused Infringer
`
`0.0
`Bench Trial
`
`0.0
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`0.0
`Jury Verdict
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`p. 12
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Bench Trial. The patentee win rate was 0.0% and the accused infringer
`win rate was 100.0%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 42.0. The distribution
`of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted from the chart.
`Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Bench Trial
`
`42
`Month of Litigation
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
`1:16cv12556
`et al v. Covidien LP et al
`
`Outcome
`Bench Trial
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 42.0
`
`p. 13
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`There was/were 3 case(s) terminated by Involuntary Dismissal. The patentee win rate was 0.0% and the accused
`infringer win rate was 100.0%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 7.4. The
`distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted from
`the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Involuntary Dismissal
`
`7
`
`8
`Month of Litigation
`
`9
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Schawbel Technologies LLC
`1:18cv10227
`v. The Heat Factory USA,
`Inc.
`KCG Technologies, LLC v.
`CarMax Auto Superstores,
`Inc. et al
`Riggs Technology Holdings,
`LLC v. Cengage Learning,
`Inc.
`
`1:21cv10778
`
`1:19cv11101
`
`Outcome
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 7.3
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 6.5
`
` 8.3
`
`p. 14
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Jury Verdict. The patentee win rate was 100.0% and the accused infringer
`win rate was 0.0%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 50.5. The distribution of
`these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted from the chart.
`Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Outcomes by Month
`For Jury Verdict
`
`49
`Month of Litigation
`
`Outcome
`Jury Verdict
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 50.5
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Crane Security
`1:14cv12428
`Technologies, Inc. et al v.
`Rolling Optics AB
`
`p. 15
`
`

`

`Case Outcomes with No Judgments in Favor of a Party:
`The cases terminated without a judgment in favor of a party are identified below, including the distribution of
`those outcomes by month of litigation.
`
`Consolidation
`There was/were 2 case(s) terminated by Consolidation. The average time to case termination in months from case filing
`was 2.2. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted
`from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Consolidation
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v.
`1:22cv11383
`Advanced Micro Devices,
`Inc.
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v.
`Advanced Micro Devices,
`Inc.
`
`1:22cv11783
`
`Outcome
`Consolidation
`
`Pendency
` 2.9
`
`Consolidation
`
` 1.4
`
`p. 16
`
`

`

`Other Settlement
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Other Settlement. The average time to case termination in months from case filing
`was 7.4. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted
`from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Other Settlement
`
`8
`Month of Litigation
`
`Outcome
`Other Settlement
`
`Pendency
` 7.4
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Schneider
`1:19cv12326
`Electric USA Inc. et al
`
`p. 17
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Other Termination. The average time to case termination in months from case filing
`was 25.9. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted
`from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Other Termination
`
`26
`Month of Litigation
`
`Outcome
`Other Termination
`
`Pendency
` 25.9
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`ASM Assembly Systems
`1:16cv10919
`Switzerland GmbH et al v.
`QTS Engineering, Inc.
`
`p. 18
`
`

`

`Transfer
`There was/were 3 case(s) terminated by Transfer. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 4.3.
`The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are omitted from the
`chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Transfer
`
`2
`
`3
`Month of Litigation
`
`9
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Group-A Autosports, Inc. v.
`1:14cv13001
`J2 Engineering, Inc. et al
`Philips Lighting North
`America Corporation et al v.
`Deco Enterprises, Inc.
`Avery Dennison RFID
`Company et al v.
`EVRYTHNG Limited
`
`1:17cv10624
`
`1:21cv10719
`
`Outcome
`Transfer
`
`Transfer
`
`Transfer
`
`Pendency
` 1.2
`
` 2.8
`
` 8.8
`
`p. 19
`
`

`

`Voluntary Dismissal
`There was/were 27 case(s) terminated by Voluntary Dismissal. The average time to case termination in months from case
`filing was 11.9. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Voluntary Dismissal
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`49
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`1:14cv14189
`
`1:14cv14697
`
`1:14cv14699
`
`1:15cv12152
`
`1:15cv13086
`
`1:18cv10876
`
`1:18cv11214
`
`1:19cv11000
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Tele-Cons, Inc. et al v.
`1:03cv11250
`Harmony Lighting, Inc. et al
`Superfocus Holdings LLC v.
`Adlens USA Inc. et al
`Vite Technologies, LLC v.
`DePuy Mitek, LLC
`Vite Technologies, LLC v.
`Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc.
`Blue Water Investment LLC
`v. Whitmor, Inc. et al
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al
`v. Amerlux, LLC et al
`Nike, Inc v. PUMA North
`America, Inc.
`ASM Assembly Systems
`Weymouth Ltd. et al v. QTS
`Engineering, Inc.
`Scanning Technologies
`Innovations LLC v. Skycore
`LLC
`MCom IP, LLC v. Redpoint
`Global Inc.
`VPR Brands, LP v. BAE
`Worldwide LLC
`ePropelled Inc. v. Exro
`Technologies Inc.
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v.
`MACOM Technology
`Solutions, Inc.
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v.
`Infineon Technologies
`America Corporation
`DataTern, Inc. v. Vision
`Chain Inc.
`
`1:21cv10657
`
`1:21cv10971
`
`1:22cv10090
`
`1:22cv11788
`
`1:22cv11926
`
`1:11cv11976
`
`Outcome
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Pendency
` 68.6
`
` 3.7
`
` 10.4
`
` 10.4
`
` 2.0
`
` 9.4
`
` 20.4
`
` 4.5
`
` 4.4
`
` 4.4
`
` 5.9
`
` 9.8
`
` 3.5
`
` 2.7
`
` 1.1
`
`p. 20
`
`

`

`Voluntary Dismissal
`There was/were 27 case(s) terminated by Voluntary Dismissal. The average time to case termination in months from case
`filing was 11.9. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Voluntary Dismissal
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`25
`
`26
`
`49
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`1:15cv12770
`
`1:16cv10819
`
`1:17cv10649
`
`1:17cv10647
`
`1:17cv10648
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`PerkinElmer, Inc. et al v.
`1:14cv12831
`Illumina, Inc.
`Murkland v. Hartman
`Products
`Spectro Scientific, Inc. v.
`Specac, Inc et al
`iRobot Corporation v. Bissell
`Homecare, Inc. et al
`iRobot Corporation v.
`Hoover Inc. et al
`iRobot Corporation v. The
`Black & Decker
`Corporation et al
`iRobot Corporation v.
`Bobsweep, Inc. et al
`iRobot Corporation v.
`Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology
`Co., Ltd.
`EcoFactor, Inc. v.
`Alarm.com Incorporated et
`al
`Matsutek Enterprises Co.,
`Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation
`Scanning Technologies
`Innovations LLC v. Scandit
`Inc.
`EcoFactor, Inc. v.
`Alarm.com Inc., et. al.
`
`Outcome
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Pendency
` 2.8
`
` 6.4
`
` 2.9
`
` 9.0
`
` 24.4
`
` 24.4
`
` 24.4
`
` 17.1
`
` 19.5
`
` 1.0
`
` 2.2
`
` 26.0
`
`1:17cv10651
`
`1:17cv10652
`
`1:20cv11007
`
`1:17cv12483
`
`1:19cv10999
`
`1:19cv12323
`
`p. 21
`
`

`

`Want of Prosecution
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Want of Prosecution. The average time to case termination in months from case
`filing was 4.5. The distribution of these outcomes by month of litigation is shown below. Months with no outcomes are
`omitted from the chart. Cases still pending after four years (if any) are lumped into month "49".
`
`Distribution of Closed Cases by Month
`For Want of Prosecution
`
`5
`Month of Litigation
`
`Outcome
`Want of Prosecution
`
`Pendency
` 4.5
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Blauer Manufacturing
`1:13cv12823
`Company, Inc. v. The
`Fechheimer Brothers
`Company
`
`p. 22
`
`

`

`Awards and Settlement Amounts:
`The awards or settlement amounts found in these cases (if any) are shown below.
`
`Case Name
`
`Crane Security
`Technologies, Inc. et al v.
`Rolling Optics AB
`
`Case Number
`
`1:14cv12428
`
`Case Outcome
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Date of Decision
`
`Amount
`
`8/23/2018
`
`$326,244
`
`p. 23
`
`

`

`Appeal Outcomes:
`There have been 1 appealed cases. The results of those appeals (if any) are shown below. Note that the appeal
`may be an interlocutory appeal or an appeal of a final judgment. The complete affirmance rate (affirmance with
`no other action), affirmed at least in part rate, and the reversed at least in part rate are shown below.
`
`Win Rates on Appeal
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`Complete Affirmance
`
`Affirmed at Least in Part
`
`0.0
`Reversed at Least in Part
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Case Name
`
`Riggs Technology Holdings,
`LLC v. Cengage Learning,
`Inc.
`
`Case Number
`
`1:21cv10778
`
`Case Outcome
`
`Appeal Outcome
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Affirmed
`
`p. 24
`
`

`

`Motion Outcomes:
`The number of contested motion decisions, win rate, and time in months from motion filing to decision by Judge
`Sorokin in these cases are shown below, broken out by motion type and movant. The movant for Markman
`decisions is listed as "Unknown" in LegalMetric's system because there is not requirement for an actual motion to
`initiate the claim construction process, and the win rate is arbitrarily set to "0". The stay motions listed below
`include all stay motions, not just stay pending IPR or stay pending reexamination motions. See following
`sections for details. For all motion types, the average win rate on plaintiff's motions was 45.5%, the average win
`rate on defendant's motions was 29.0% and the difference was 16.4%. The nationwide difference on plaintiff v.
`defendant motion win rates in patent cases is 6%.
`
`Discovery
`
`Dismissal
`
`Exceptional Case
`
`Expert/Daubert
`
`Increased Damages
`
`Markman Decision
`
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Unknown
`Total
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Sanctions/Attorneys Fees Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`
`Permanent Injunction
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay
`
`Number
`14
`
` Win Rate
`53.6
`
`Pendency
`1.0
`
`5
`
`9
`
`9
`
`8
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`4
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`5
`
`3
`
`2
`
`10
`
`8
`
`2
`
`20.0
`
`72.2
`
`33.3
`
`37.5
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`40.0
`
`37.5
`
`50.0
`
`0.5
`
`1.3
`
`2.8
`
`3.1
`
`0.9
`
`2.6
`
`2.6
`
`0.2
`
`0.2
`
`0.2
`
`2.6
`
`2.6
`
`18.2
`
`18.2
`
`2.6
`
`2.6
`
`3.5
`
`5.2
`
`2.7
`
`4.0
`
`4.1
`
`3.8
`
`0.9
`
`1.1
`
`0.0
`
`p. 25
`
`

`

`Summary Judgment
`
`Temporary Restraining
`Order Motion
`
`Transfer Motion
`
`Total
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Plaintiff
`Total
`Defendant
`
`Number
`4
`
` Win Rate
`50.0
`
`Pendency
`5.7
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`33.3
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`4.5
`
`9.6
`
`0.3
`
`0.3
`
`6.1
`
`6.1
`
`p. 26
`
`

`

`Discovery
`There were 14 Discovery contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on these
`motions was 53.6%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision was 1.0. The distribution of
`time to decision for the first 12 months of motion pendency is shown below, with any motions remaining
`pendency after 12 months lumped into month "13". Months with no decisions are not included in the chart.
`Note that the first month includes all decisions occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Discovery
`
`3
`
`2
`Month of Litigation from Motion Filing
`
`1
`
`6
`
`10
`
`1
`
`10
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4
`
`2
`
`0
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`
` Pendency Date of Decision
`Case Number Decision Movant
`1:16cv12556
`Granted
`Defendant
` 0.1
`8/3/18
`Plaintiff
` 1.3
`12/8/08
`1:08cv10447
`Denied
`1:10cv11041
`Denied
`Plaintiff
` 0.9
`4/30/13
`1:15cv10240
`Granted
`Plaintiff
` 0.7
`10/5/15
`1:15cv10240
`Granted
`Plaintiff
` 0.3
`9/2/15
`Granted in
`1:10cv11041
`Plaintiff
` 0.6
`3/4/13
`part,
`Denied in
`Part
`Denied
`Denied
`Granted
`Granted
`Granted
`Denied
`Denied
`Granted
`
` 0.6
` 0.2
` 0.9
` 5.4
` 0.7
` 0.6
` 1.1
` 1.1
`
`4/8/13
`5/17/13
`4/16/14
`4/1/16
`10/5/15
`9/21/15
`2/25/19
`4/19/19
`
`1:10cv11041
`1:10cv11041
`1:11cv12278
`1:15cv10240
`1:15cv10240
`1:15cv10240
`1:18cv10876
`1:18cv10876
`
`Defendant
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`Plaintiff
`Plaintiff
`Defendant
`Defendant
`Plaintiff
`
`p. 27
`
`

`

`Dismissal
`There were 9 Dismissal contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on these
`motions was 33.3%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision was 2.8. The distribution of
`time to decision for the first 12 months of motion pendency is shown below, with any motions remaining
`pendency after 12 months lumped into month "13". Months with no decisions are not included in the chart.
`Note that the first month includes all decisions occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Dismissal
`
`2
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`5
`3
`Month of Litigation from Motion Filing
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`7
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`
` Pendency Date of Decision
`Case Number Decision Movant
`1:14cv12428
`Denied
`Defendant
` 4.3
`12/8/14
`Denied
`Defendant
` 0.6
`10/30/14
`1:14cv12962
`without
`Prejudice
`Denied
`without
`Prejudice
`
` 1.5
`
`7/10/15
`
`1:15cv10240
`
`Defendant
`
`1:15cv10240
`
`1:18cv10227
`1:18cv10876
`
`Denied
`without
`Prejudice
`Granted
`Denied
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendant
`Defendant
`
`1:19cv11101
`1:20cv11883
`
`Granted
`Denied
`
`Defendant
`Defendant
`
`1:21cv10778
`
`Granted
`
`Defendant
`
` 0.9
`
` 1.1
` 2.9
`
` 2.2
` 6.8
`
` 5.1
`
`9/17/15
`
`9/17/18
`10/10/18
`
`11/27/19
`8/20/21
`
`1/21/22
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`Failure to State a Claim for
`infringement
`
`Failure to state a claim for
`infringement and multiple
`state torts and lack of
`personal jurisdiction
`Failure to State a Claim of
`Inequitable Conduct
`
`First-Filed Rule
`35 USC 101; Failure to
`State a Claim of
`Willfulness
`35 USC 101
`Failure to State a Claim of
`Infringement
`35 USC 101
`
`p. 28
`
`

`

`Exceptional Case
`There were 1 Exceptional Case contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on these
`motions was 0.0%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision was 2.6. The distribution of
`time to decision for the first 12 months of motion pendency is shown below, with any motions remaining
`pendency after 12 months lumped into month "13". Months with no decisions are not included in the chart.
`Note that the first month includes all decisions occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Exceptional Case
`
`1
`
`3
`Month of Litigation from Motion Filing
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`
`Case Number Decision Movant
`1:14cv12428
`Denied
`Plaintiff
`
` Pendency Date of Decision
` 2.6
`8/23/18
`
`p. 29
`
`

`

`Expert/Daubert
`
`There were 3 Expert/Daubert contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on these
`motions was 0.0%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision (or in the case of Markman
`rulings, from case filing to decision) was 0.2. The distribution of time to decision for the first 12 months of
`motion pendency is shown below, with any motions remaining pendency after 12 months lumped into month
`"13". Months with no decisions are not included in the chart. Note that the first month includes all decisions
`occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Expert/Daubert
`
`3
`
`1
`Month of Litigation from Motion Filing
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`The supporting data is shown below. The table below identifies motion subjects ("What") and grounds ("Why")
`and includes the designation GIP for those subjects and grounds which were granted in part and denied in part.
`
`Case Number Decision Movant
`1:14cv12428
`Denied
`Plaintiff
`1:14cv12428
`Denied
`Defendant
`1:14cv12428
`Denied
`Defendant
`
` Pendency Date What Why
` 0.2
`4/26/18
` 0.2
`4/26/18
` 0.2
`4/26/18
`
`p. 30
`
`

`

`Increased Damages
`There were 1 Increased Damages contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on
`these motions was 100.0%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision was 2.6. The
`distribution of time to decision for the first 12 months of motion pendency is shown below, with any motions
`remaining pendency after 12 months lumped into month "13". Months with no decisions are not included in
`the chart. Note that the first month includes all decisions occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Increased Damages
`
`1
`
`3
`Month of Litigation from Motion Filing
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`
`Case Number Decision Movant
`1:14cv12428
`Granted
`Plaintiff
`
` Pendency Date of Decision
` 2.6
`8/23/18
`
`p. 31
`
`

`

`Markman Decision
`There were 4 Markman Decision contested decisions by Judge Sorokin. The overall contested win rate on
`these motions was 0.0%. The average time (in months) from motion filing to decision was 18.2. The
`distribution of time to decision for the first 12 months of motion pendency is shown below, with any motions
`remaining pendency after 12 months lumped into month "13". Months with no decisions are not included in
`the chart. Note that the first month includes all decisions occurring less than 1 month from motion filing.
`
`Distribution of Decisions by Month
`For Markman Decision
`
`4
`
`3.5
`
`3
`
`2.5
`
`2
`
`1.5
`