LegalMetric District Report
`Massachusetts District Court
`in Patent Cases
`January 2019-January 2024
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`NIKE-1047
`
`

`

`Overview
`
`This report covers the patent cases of the active judges in the Massachusetts District Court as of January 2024
`(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
`
`
`
`2020
`
`2022
`
`2024
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`31.6
`21.4
`71.4
`60.0
`100.0
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`Accused Win Rate
`68.4
`78.6
`28.6
`40.0
`0.0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Bowler
`Cabell
`Collings
`Gorton
`Hennessy
`Joun
`Levenson
`Neiman
`Ponsor
`Saris
`Sorokin
`Talwani
`Wolf
`Young
`
`1.8
`
`50.3
`
`89.7
`
`10.4
`
`6.3
`
`30.4
`
`29.0
`
`18.9
`18.1
`
`51.0
`51.5
`
`43.7
`
`10.0
`
`0
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Larger Version in Body of Report
`
`80
`
`100
`
`Number
`279
`54
`225
`38
`28
`
`752
`
`Total Cases
`Open Cases
`Closed Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgmnts
`Trials
`Bench
`Jury
`
`All Cases
`Judgments
`Contested
`Trial
`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
`16.6
`38.0
`42.1
`42.3
`46.2
`32.4
`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:
`$161,939
`Median:
`$161,939
`
`Appeals:
`
`Total
`
`Number of Appeals Complete Affirmance Rate
`23
`60.0
`
`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 IPR
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`
`Win Rate
`
`16.7
`
`55.6
`
`50.0
`
`41.0
`
`50.0
`
`Win Rates on Contested Motions
`
`55.6
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`41.0
`
`16.7
`
`
`
`Sum mary Judgment
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`0.0
`TRO
`
`Transfer
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Claim Construction
`18
`reliminary Injunction
`
`3P
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`18
`tay Pending Reexam
`
`2S
`
`Claim Construction
`Preliminary Injunction
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`TRO
`
`18
`
`3
`
`18
`
`2
`
`61
`
`6
`
`1
`
`TRO
`1
`Transfer
`6
`
`Summary
`Judgment
`
`61
`
`3
`
`

`

`Alice Motions: The number of Alice motions (if any) and win rates on those motions are shown below, by motion type.
`
`Total
`Massachusetts Total
`Bowler
`
`Burroughs
`
`Casper
`
`Gorton
`
`Saris
`
`Saylor
`
`Sorokin
`
`Stearns
`
`Talwani
`
`Young
`
`Total
`Win Rate
`42.4
`
`42.4
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`33.3
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`33.3
`
`33.3
`
`66.7
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`20.0
`
`33.3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`66.7
`
`66.7
`
`25.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`45.0
`
`66.7
`
`12.5
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Total
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Summary Judgment
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Summary Judgment
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Summary Judgment
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`Total
`Dismissal Motion
`
`Number of Decisions
`33
`
`33
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`3
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`5
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`10
`
`6
`
`4
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Home Field Advantage?
`The plaintiff and defendant contested win rates in Massachusetts 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
`
`73.6
`
`74.3
`
`73.0
`
`60.5
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local
`- Plaintiff Away
`
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`39.5
`
`26.4
`
`25.7
`
`27.0
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`40
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`Percentage
`
`Fraction of Contested Judgments, by Party Location
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`33.3%
`
`Local - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`18.5%
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`38.1%
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`10.1%
`
`5
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Division
`The breakdown of patent cases by division is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Total Patent Cases, by Division
`
`Worcester
`15
`Springfield
`4
`
`Boston
`260
`
`6
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Case Outcome
`The breakdown of patent cases by case outcome is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Case Outcomes by Type
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`0.4%
`Jury Verdict
`0.9%
`Judgment as a Matter
`of Law
`0.4%
`Involuntary Dismissal
`2.7%
`Default Judgment
`0.9%
`Consolidated
`2.7%
`Consent Judgment
`3.6%
`Bench Trial
`2.2%
`Want of Prosecution
`0.9%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`66.2%
`
`Other Settlement
`7.6%
`Other Termination
`1.8%
`Stay
`1.3%
`Summary Judgment
`5.3%
`Transfer
`3.1%
`
`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
`
`0
`
`0
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`0
`Zobel
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`4
`
`4
`
`5
`
`3
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`12
`
`16
`
`33
`
`20
`
`22
`
`26
`
`32
`
`23
`
`28
`
`21
`
`21
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`8
`
`

`

`District
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`O`Toole
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Wolf
`Young
`
`All Cases
`279
`
`Last Three Years
`128
`
`1
`
`33
`
`1
`
`20
`
`3
`
`22
`
`4
`
`1
`
`5
`
`4
`
`12
`
`1
`
`3
`
`16
`
`1
`
`26
`
`32
`
`23
`
`28
`
`21
`
`1
`
`21
`
`0
`
`18
`
`0
`
`9
`
`0
`
`12
`
`4
`
`0
`
`3
`
`4
`
`11
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`10
`
`12
`
`11
`
`10
`
`4
`
`0
`
`11
`
`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
`
`30.6
`
`
`
`Boston
`
`0.0
`Springfield
`
`Worcester
`
`Contested Patentee Win Rate
`
`22.2
`
`
`
`Boston
`
`0.0
`Springfield
`
`Worcester
`
`Patentee Trial Win Rate
`
`71
`
`
`
`Boston
`
`Springfield
`
`Worcester
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`8
`
`4
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Plaintiff Win Rate/
`No. of Judgments
`31.6
`38
`
`30.6
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`36
`
`1
`
`1
`
`District
`Boston
`Springfield
`Worcester
`
`Contested Win Rate/
`Number Contested
`21.4
`28
`
`22.2
`
`0.0
`
`27
`
`1
`
`District
`Boston
`Springfield
`
`Trial Win Rate/
`Number of Trials
`71.4
`7
`
`71.4
`
`7
`
`District
`Boston
`
`10
`
`

`

`Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`60.0
`
`
`
`Boston
`
`Springfield
`
`Worcester
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`39.6
`
`10.4
`
`6.3
`
`
`
`Boston
`
`Springfield
`
`Worcester
`
`40
`
`35
`
`30
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`05
`
`Percentage
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Complete Aff. Rate/
`Number of Appeals
`60.0
`10
`
`60.0
`
`10
`
`District
`Boston
`
`Time to Term./
`Number of Judgmts.
`38.0
`38
`
`39.6
`
`6.3
`
`10.4
`
`36
`
`1
`
`1
`
`District
`Boston
`Springfield
`Worcester
`
`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
`16.9%
`
`
`83.1%
`
`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
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Number of Judgments Overall Win Rate Contested Win Rate Trial Win Rate
`5
`60.0
`60.0
`60.0
`
`8
`
`2
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`12
`
`62.5
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`8.3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`8.3
`
`100.0
`
`12
`
`

`

`Win Rates by Year
`The following chart shows the patentee overall win rate and contested win rate for the active judges in the
`Massachusetts District Court by year. The overall patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide overall win rate of 54.9%, and the contested patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide patentee contested win rate of 21.6%. 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
`
`
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`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 Massachusetts District Court is shown in the following chart:
`
`Terminations by Judgment Each Year: Currently
`Active Judges
`
`
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`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.
`
`2,019
`2,020
`2,021
`2,022
`2,023
`2,024
`
`Patentee Wins
`6
`
` Total Decisions
`12
`
` Patentee Win Rate Acc. Infr. Win Rate
`50.0
`50.0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`0
`
`0
`
`8
`
`7
`
`7
`
`3
`
`1
`
`12.5
`
`28.6
`
`42.9
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`87.5
`
`71.4
`
`57.1
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`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
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`0.0
`
`66.7
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`50.0
`
`20.0
`25.0
`
`100.0
`
`80
`
`100
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`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
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`0.0
`
`60.0
`
`20.0
`
`33.3
`
`100.0
`
`80
`
`100
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`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.
`
`Total
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Gorton
`Hillman
`Mastroianni
`O`Toole
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Young
`
`Overall Win Rate Number of Judgments Contested Win Rate Contested Judgments
`31.6
`38
`21.4
`28
`
`66.7
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`20.0
`
`25.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`3
`
`4
`
`2
`
`60.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`20.0
`
`33.3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`5
`
`0
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`2
`
`5
`
`3
`
`3
`
`2
`
`3
`
`1
`
`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
`536
`
`Barack Obama
`240
`George Bush
`158
`
`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
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`15.2%
`10.0%
`10.9%
`30.0%
`33.9%
`100.0%
`
`Ronald Reagan
`473
`
`Jimmy Carter
`172
`
`Win Rates by Nominating President
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`
`Barack
`Obama
`
`George
`Bush
`
`Jimmy
`Carter
`
`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
`George Bush
`Jimmy Carter
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`
`27.5
`
`50.0
`
`66.7
`
`53.6
`
`46.7
`
`40
`
`25
`
`33
`
`98
`
`90
`
`16.1
`
`41.7
`
`44.4
`
`25.9
`
`27.9
`
`31
`
`18
`
`18
`
`58
`
`61
`
`66.7
`
`81.3
`
`77.8
`
`56.3
`
`52.0
`
`6
`
`8
`
`9
`
`16
`
`25
`
`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
`
`38.0
`
`42.1
`
`42.3
`
`16.6
`
`All Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Judgment
`
`Contested
`Judgment Cases
`
`Cases Terminated
`by Trial
`
`45
`
`40
`
`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
`
`
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`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
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`55.5
`
`89.7
`
`35.9
`
`6.3
`
`18.3
`
`18.9
`19.8
`
`18.9
`
`51.0
`46.8
`
`44.5
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`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
`
`149
`
`120
`
`140
`
`160
`
`17
`
`12
`
`5
`8
`6
`
`2
`
`6
`
`121
`
`4 3
`
`7
`
`2
`
`0
`
`20
`
`40
`
`100
`80
`60
`Number of Cases
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`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
`Remand to U.S. Agency
`Stay
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`Average Time to Termination by
`Outcome
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`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
`Remand to U.S. Agency
`Stay
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`0
`
`3.8
`
`7.9
`
`17.6
`
`18.8
`
`11.8
`
`9.8
`
`28.6
`
`46.2
`
`32.4
`
`60.0
`
`47.1
`
`54.0
`
`5.4
`6.9
`10
`
`12.8
`
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`70
`
`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 Massachusetts 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
`
`160
`
`140
`
`120
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`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
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`19.1
`
`21.0
`
`3.5
`
`1.8
`
`4.4
`
`2.5
`2.2
`
`4.4
`
`13.3
`
`9.4
`
`9.2
`
`16.7
`
`12.9
`
`16.2
`
`23.3
`
`12.0
`
`19.3
`
`25.3
`
`37.7
`
`10.0
`
`5
`
`10 15 20 25 30 35 40
`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
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`1.8
`
`50.3
`
`89.7
`
`10.4
`
`6.3
`
`30.4
`
`29.0
`
`18.9
`18.1
`
`10.0
`
`51.0
`51.5
`
`43.7
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`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
`
`
`Boal
`Bowler
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`Casper
`Collings
`Dein
`Gorton
`Guzman
`Hennessy
`Hillman
`Joun
`Kelley
`Levenson
`Mastroianni
`Neiman
`O`Toole
`Ponsor
`Robertson
`Saris
`Saylor
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Tauro
`Wolf
`Woodlock
`Young
`Zobel
`0
`
`55.5
`
`89.7
`
`35.9
`
`6.3
`
`18.3
`
`18.9
`19.8
`
`18.9
`
`51.0
`46.8
`
`44.5
`
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`100
`
`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.
`
`Total
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Default Judgment
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Jury Verdict
`Other Termination
`Summary Judgment
`
`Number of Judgments
`38
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`31.6
`
`Average Time to Termination
`38.0
`
`5
`
`8
`
`2
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`12
`
`60.0
`
`62.5
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`8.3
`
`46.2
`
`28.6
`
`17.6
`
`7.9
`
`60.0
`
`32.4
`
`64.3
`
`54.0
`
`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
`
`Burroughs
`
`55.6
`
`Saris
`
`Sorokin
`
`Stearns
`
`44.6
`
`42.0
`
`33.5
`
`0
`
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`27
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`District
`Burroughs
`Saris
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`
`Average Time to Termination
`46.2
`
`Number of Cases
`5
`
`55.6
`
`44.6
`
`42.0
`
`33.5
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`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
`
`34
`
`39
`
`42
`
`45
`
`73
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`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
`
`60.0
`
`40.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`29
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`Case Number
`1:16cv11613
`
`Judge
`Stearns
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 33.5
`
`1:17cv12239
`
`Burroughs
`
`Patentee
`
`1:16cv12556
`
`Sorokin
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`1:15cv13443
`
`Saris
`
`Patentee
`
`1:16cv10791
`
`Burroughs
`
`Patentee
`
` 38.8
`
` 42.0
`
` 44.6
`
` 72.4
`
`Case Name
`Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc.
`Astellas Institute for
`Regenerative Medicine et al
`v. ImStem Biotechnology,
`Inc. et al
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
`et al v. Covidien LP et al
`Dana-Farber Cancer
`Institute, Inc. v. Ono
`Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et
`al
`Terrie Banhazl v. The
`American Ceramic Society
`et al
`
`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
`
`Burroughs
`
`24.8
`
`Cabell
`
`1.8
`
`O`Toole
`
`Saylor
`
`Stearns
`
`Talwani
`
`Young
`
`1.1
`
`14.5
`
`65.7
`
`39.7
`
`41.3
`
`0
`
`10
`
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`70
`
`31
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`District
`Burroughs
`Cabell
`O`Toole
`Saylor
`Stearns
`Talwani
`Young
`
`Average Time to Termination
`28.6
`
`Number of Cases
`8
`
`24.8
`
`1.8
`
`39.7
`
`65.7
`
`14.5
`
`41.3
`
`1.1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`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
`
`2
`
`15
`
`12
`
`25
`Month of Litigation
`
`42
`
`66
`
`68
`
`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
`
`62.5
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`37.5
`
`
`
`70
`
`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
`
`Gorton
`
`24.8
`
`Hillman
`
`10.4
`
`0
`
`4
`
`20
`16
`12
`8
`Months from Case Filing
`
`24
`
`28
`
`34
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`District
`Gorton
`Hillman
`
`Average Time to Termination
`17.6
`
`Number of Cases
`2
`
`24.8
`
`10.4
`
`1
`
`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
`
`11
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`25
`
`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
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`36
`
`

`

`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
`
`Mastroianni
`
`6.3
`
`O`Toole
`
`Sorokin
`
`Stearns
`
`Talwani
`
`7.5
`
`7.4
`
`6.2
`
`12.4
`
`0
`
`2
`
`10
`8
`6
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`12
`
`14
`
`37
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`District
`Mastroianni
`O`Toole
`Sorokin
`Stearns
`Talwani
`
`Average Time to Termination
`7.9
`
`Number of Cases
`6
`
`6.3
`
`7.5
`
`7.4
`
`6.2
`
`12.4
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`38
`
`

`

`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
`
`7
`
`9
`
`8
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`13
`
`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
`
`39
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Case Number
`1:19cv11276
`
`Judge
`Stearns
`
`3:19cv30013
`
`Mastroianni
`
`1:19cv11101
`
`Sorokin
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`1:23cv11398
`
`O`Toole
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`1:21cv10778
`
`Sorokin
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 6.2
`
` 6.3
`
` 6.5
`
` 7.5
`
` 8.3
`
`1:21cv11477
`
`Talwani
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 12.4
`
`Case Name
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Akamai
`Technologies, Inc.
`Sanderson-MacLeod, Inc. v.
`Hobbs Medical, Inc.
`KCG Technologies, LLC v.
`CarMax Auto Superstores,
`Inc. et al
`Current Lighting Solutions,
`LLC v. Signify Holding B.V.
`et al
`Riggs Technology Holdings,
`LLC v. Cengage Learning,
`Inc.
`INTEGRATED
`TECHNOLOGY
`SOLUTIONS LLC v.
`iRacing.com Motorsport
`Simulations, LLC
`
`40
`
`

`

`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`The number of Judgment as a Matter of Law 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 Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Burroughs
`
`60.0
`
`0
`
`10
`
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`60
`
`70
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`District
`Burroughs
`
`Average Time to Termination
`60.0
`
`Number of Cases
`1
`
`60.0
`
`1
`
`41
`
`

`

`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`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 Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`61
`Month of Litigation
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`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 Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`0.0
`
`
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`42
`
`

`

`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Case Number
`1:18cv12029
`
`Judge
`Burroughs
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 60.0
`
`Case Name
`Teva Pharmaceuticals
`International GmbH et al v.
`Eli Lilly and Company
`
`43
`
`

`

`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
`
`Saylor
`
`45.8
`
`Young
`
`18.9
`
`0
`
`5
`
`40
`35
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`45
`
`50
`
`44
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`District
`Saylor
`Young
`
`Average Time to Termination
`32.4
`
`Number of Cases
`2
`
`45.8
`
`18.9
`
`1
`
`1
`
`45
`
`

`

`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
`
`19
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`46
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`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
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`0.0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`46
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`
`Case Number
`1:21cv10216
`
`Judge
`Young
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`1:15cv13488
`
`Saylor
`
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 18.9
`
` 45.8
`
`Case Name
`Siemens Gamesa
`Renewable Energy A/S v.
`General Electric Co. et al
`SiOnyx, LLC, et al v.
`Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.,
`et al
`
`47
`
`

`

`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
`
`Stearns
`
`18.8
`
`0
`
`16
`12
`8
`4
`Months from Case Filing
`
`20
`
`48
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`District
`Stearns
`
`Average Time to Termination
`18.8
`
`Number of Cases
`1
`
`18.8
`
`1
`
`49
`
`

`

`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
`
`19
`Month of Litigation
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`50
`
`

`

`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
`
`Burroughs
`
`45.0
`
`Casper
`
`Talwani
`
`Young
`
`14.9
`
`70.4
`
`58.3
`
`0
`
`10
`
`60
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`70
`
`80
`
`51
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`District
`Burroughs
`Casper
`Talwani
`Young
`
`Average Time to Termination
`47.1
`
`Number of Cases
`4
`
`45.0
`
`70.4
`
`58.3
`
`14.9
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`52
`
`

`

`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
`
`15
`
`59
`
`46
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`71
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`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
`
`53
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`
`Case Number
`1:17cv12499
`
`Judge
`Talwani
`
`1:13cv11567
`
`Casper
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 58.3
`
` 70.4
`
`Case Name
`Realtime Data LLC v.
`CARBONITE, INC. et al
`Zond, Inc. v. Gillette
`Company, the et al
`
`54
`
`

`

`Summary Judgment
`
`