`Case 6:20-cv-00636—ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 113
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`EXHIBIT 1 1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 113
`
`LegalMetric District Report
`California Northern District Court
`in Patent Cases
`
`January 2016-June 2020
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 113
`Overview
`
`This report covers the patent cases of the active judges in the California Northern District Court as of July
`2020 (the date of the most recent LegalMetric docket download for this court). Cases of inactive judges are
`not included.
`The number of cases, judgments,
`contested judgments, and trials for this
`court are shown below.
`
`Patentee and Accused Infringer Overall Win
`Rate by Year
`
`Number
`
`Patentee Overall Win
`Rate
`Acc. Infr. Overall Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`2017
`
`2019
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`
`Accused Win Rate
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`16.4
`6.7
`71.4
`50.0
`75.0
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`83.6
`93.3
`28.6
`50.0
`25.0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Armstrong
`Breyer
`Chesney
`Conti
`Cousins
`DeMarchi
`Fogel
`Gilliam
`Hamilton
`Hixson
`James
`Kim
`Laporte
`Orrick
`Ryu
`Smith
`Tigar
`Westmore
`Wilken
`
`17.6
`
`12.2
`9.1
`16.0
`23.9
`19.829.3
`20.7
`
`19.6
`
`47.6
`
`59.2
`
`100.4
`
`32.1
`
`8.813.6
`5.3
`16.616.315.7
`16.7
`12.6
`
`33.1
`25.2
`20
`
`0
`
`80
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Larger Version in Body of Report
`
`100
`
`120
`
`1477
`371
`1106
`183
`150
`14
`
`21
`
`Total Cases
`Open Cases
`Closed Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgmnts
`Trials
`Bench
`Jury
`
`2
`The overall win rate, contested win rate,
`and trial win rate for the patentee are
`shown to the right and the corresponding
`times to termination are shown below.
`Contested win rates do not include
`consent and default judgments.
`Months
`
`All Cases
`Judgments
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`12.5
`21.5
`20.8
`34.1
`25.9
`35.5
`
`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:
`$4,656,751
`Median:
`$2,792,215
`
`Appeals:
`
`Total
`
`Number of Appeals Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`128
`
`66.2
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 4 of 113
`
`Motions and Claim Construction:
`The win rates on various motions for the district (if any), along with the number of decisions and the number of claim
`construction decisions are shown below.
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`Win Rate
`
`20.8
`
`100.0
`
`72.8
`
`40.0
`
`55.4
`
`37.9
`
`Win Rates on Contested Motions
`
`100.0
`
`72.8
`
`55.4
`
`40.0
`
`37.9
`
`20.8
`
`
`
`Sum mary Judgment
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`0.0
`TRO
`
`Transfer
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Claim Construction
`88
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`24
`tay Pending CBM
`Rev.
`
`1S
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`46
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay Pending CBM Rev
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`TRO
`
`88
`
`24
`
`1
`
`46
`
`10
`
`120
`
`29
`
`5
`
`TRO
`5
`Transfer
`29
`
`Summary
`Judgment
`Stay Pending
`Reexam
`
`120
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 5 of 113
`Alice Motions: The number of Alice motions and win rates on those motions are shown below, by motion type.
`
`Total
`
`Win Rate
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Total
`
`California
`Northern
`
`Total
`
`Dismissal Motion
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`65.7
`
`65.7
`
`66.1
`
`63.6
`
`69.2
`
`102
`
`102
`
`56
`
`33
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 6 of 113
`
`Home Field Advantage?
`The plaintiff and defendant contested win rates in California Northern 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
`
`18.3
`
`19.2
`
`19.1
`
`100
`
`81.7
`
`80.8
`
`84.2
`
`80.9
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local
`- Plaintiff Away
`
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`15.8
`
`Away - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`
`Local - Plaintiff
`and Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`8
`
`4
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Fraction of Contested Judgments, by Party Location
`
`Plaintiff Local -
`Defendant Away
`27.0%
`
`Local - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`7.5%
`Defendant Local -
`Plaintiff Away
`10.3%
`
`Away - Plaintiff and
`Defendant
`55.2%
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 7 of 113
`
`Breakdown by Division
`The breakdown of patent cases by division is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Total Patent Cases, by Division
`
`Oakland
`368
`
`San Jose
`392
`
`San
`720
`Francisco
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 8 of 113
`
`Breakdown by Case Outcome
`The breakdown of patent cases by case outcome is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Case Outcomes by Type
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`13.7%
`Improper Venue
`0.1%
`Default Judgment
`0.9%
`Consolidated
`2.9%
`Consent Judgment
`2.1%
`Bench Trial
`0.2%
`Want of Prosecution
`0.2%
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`7.5%
`Jury Verdict
`1.1%
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`1.1%
`Other Settlement
`4.1%
`Other Termination
`1.9%
`Remand to State
`Court
`
`0.5%
`Summary Judgment
`3.3%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`58.6%
`
`Transfer
`1.8%
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 9 of 113
`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
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`4
`
`7
`
`31
`
`26
`
`36
`
`22
`
`19
`
`48
`
`14
`
`10
`
`8
`
`24
`30
`
`21
`
`30
`
`16
`
`16
`
`29
`
`77
`
`73
`
`67
`
`73
`
`80
`
`62
`
`67
`
`76
`
`73
`
`101
`
`143
`
`103
`
`89
`
`20
`
`40
`
`60
`
`80
`
`100 120 140 160
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 10 of 113
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Armstrong
`
`Beeler
`
`Chen
`
`Chesney
`
`Chhabria
`
`Corley
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`DeMarchi
`
`Donato
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`Hamilton
`
`All Cases
`
`Last Three Years
`
`1477
`
`908
`
`77
`
`7
`
`31
`
`73
`
`1
`
`67
`
`26
`
`36
`
`73
`
`22
`
`80
`
`143
`
`101
`
`19
`
`48
`
`14
`
`46
`
`0
`
`20
`
`51
`
`0
`
`45
`
`20
`
`25
`
`44
`
`22
`
`45
`
`105
`
`51
`
`0
`
`20
`
`12
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`James
`
`Keulen
`
`Kim
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Ryu
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`Tse
`
`Westmore
`
`White
`
`Wilken
`
`62
`
`10
`
`24
`
`30
`
`67
`
`21
`
`8
`
`30
`
`76
`
`16
`
`73
`
`29
`
`103
`
`1
`
`16
`
`89
`
`4
`
`38
`
`7
`
`24
`
`17
`
`52
`
`10
`
`2
`
`5
`
`44
`
`12
`
`48
`
`21
`
`61
`
`1
`
`13
`
`47
`
`0
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 11 of 113
`
`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
`
`24.1
`
`12.5
`
`7.7
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Contested Patentee Win Rate
`
`9.1
`
`7.0
`
`2.4
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Patentee Trial Win Rate
`
`100
`
`100
`
`43
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`10
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4
`
`2
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Percentage
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Plaintiff Win Rate/
`No. of Judgments
`16.4
`183
`
`7.7
`
`24.1
`
`12.5
`
`52
`
`83
`
`48
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Contested Win Rate/
`Number Contested
`6.7
`150
`
`2.4
`
`9.1
`
`7.0
`
`41
`
`66
`
`43
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Trial Win Rate/
`Number of Trials
`71.4
`14
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`42.9
`
`1
`
`6
`
`7
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 12 of 113
`Case 6:20-cv-00636—ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 12 of 113
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 13 of 113
`
`Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`80.0
`
`74.1
`
`42.9
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`27.4
`
`19.2
`
`19.1
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`28
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`Percentage
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Complete Aff. Rate/
`Number of Appeals
`66.2
`68
`
`42.9
`
`74.1
`
`80.0
`
`21
`
`27
`
`20
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Time to Term./
`Number of Judgmts.
`21.5
`183
`
`27.4
`
`19.2
`
`19.1
`
`52
`
`83
`
`48
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 14 of 113
`
`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
`16.5%
`
`
`83.5%
`
`The number of judgments by each outcome, the overall patentee win rate, the contested patentee win rate,
`and the trial win rate for each outcome are shown below. Note that the overall win rate includes consent
`and default judgments, whereas the contested win rate does not include consent and default judgments.
`The figures given are for "patentees", rather than "plaintiffs". These figures take into account those
`declaratory judgment cases where the plaintiff is not the patentee.
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Number of Judgments Overall Win Rate Contested Win Rate Trial Win Rate
`
`2
`
`23
`
`10
`
`83
`
`12
`
`3
`
`13
`
`37
`
`50.0
`
`43.5
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`75.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`75.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`75.0
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 15 of 113
`
`Win Rates by Year
`The following chart shows the patentee overall win rate and contested win rate for the active judges in the
`California Northern District Court by year. The overall patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide overall win rate of 54.7%, and the contested patentee win rate should be compared with the
`nationwide patentee contested win rate of 21.7%. 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
`
`
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`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 California Northern District Court is shown in the following chart:
`
`Terminations by Judgment Each Year: Currently
`Active Judges
`
`
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 16 of 113
`
`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.
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Patentee Wins
`
` Total Decisions Patentee Win Rate Acc. Infr. Win Rate
`
`10
`
`4
`
`6
`
`5
`
`5
`
`39
`
`26
`
`48
`
`47
`
`23
`
`25.6
`
`15.4
`
`12.5
`
`10.6
`
`21.7
`
`74.4
`
`84.6
`
`87.5
`
`89.4
`
`78.3
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 17 of 113
`
`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
`
`0.0
`
`12.5
`
`12.5
`
`14.3
`
`16.7
`
`6.7
`10.0
`
`50.0
`42.9
`
`42.9
`
`42.9
`
`33.3
`
`30.0
`
`60.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`5.9
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`0.0
`Wilken
`0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 18 of 113
`
`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
`0.0
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`0.0
`White
`0.0
`Wilken
`0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`
`12.5
`
`8.3
`
`20.0
`
`50.0
`
`9.1
`
`7.1
`
`20.0
`
`50.0
`
`100.0
`
`20
`
`60
`40
`Percentage
`
`80
`
`100
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 19 of 113
`
`The table below includes the patentee overall and contested win rates for each active judge, along with the
`number of terminations by judgment and by contested judgment by that judge in patent cases during the
`period covered by this report. Judges with no judgments are not included.
`
`Overall Win Rate Number of Judgments Contested Win Rate Contested Judgments
`
`Total
`
`Alsup
`
`Chen
`
`Chhabria
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`Hamilton
`
`16.4
`
`12.5
`
`12.5
`
`14.3
`
`50.0
`
`42.9
`
`16.7
`
`6.7
`
`10.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`183
`
`16
`
`8
`
`14
`
`4
`
`7
`
`12
`
`15
`
`10
`
`5
`
`4
`
`2
`
`6.7
`
`0.0
`
`12.5
`
`8.3
`
`50.0
`
`20.0
`
`9.1
`
`7.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`150
`
`14
`
`8
`
`12
`
`4
`
`5
`
`11
`
`14
`
`7
`
`5
`
`4
`
`2
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Ryu
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`Wilken
`
`0.0
`
`42.9
`
`0.0
`
`33.3
`
`100.0
`
`60.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`42.9
`
`0.0
`
`30.0
`
`5.9
`
`0.0
`
`7
`
`17
`
`3
`
`1
`
`5
`
`15
`
`1
`
`7
`
`2
`
`10
`
`17
`
`1
`
`20.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`5
`
`16
`
`2
`
`0
`
`2
`
`14
`
`1
`
`4
`
`2
`
`4
`
`13
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 20 of 113
`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
`1,454
`
`Barack Obama
`1,397
`
`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
`George W. Bush
`Jimmy Carter
`Ronald Reagan
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`41.8%
`5.8%
`7.6%
`0.3%
`1.0%
`43.5%
`100.0%
`
`Ronald Reagan
`32
`Jimmy Carter
`9
`George W. Bush
`254
`
`George Bush
`195
`
`Win Rates by Nominating President
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`
`Barack
`Obama
`
`George
`Bush
`
`George W.
`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
`
`George W. Bush
`
`Jimmy Carter
`
`Ronald Reagan
`
`William J. Clinton
`
`18.6
`
`40.9
`
`30.0
`
`0.0
`
`62.5
`
`36.7
`
`177
`
`22
`
`40
`
`1
`
`8
`
`251
`
`8.0
`
`18.8
`
`3.8
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`12.5
`
`137
`
`16
`
`26
`
`1
`
`6
`
`168
`
`50.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`48.5
`
`22
`
`3
`
`1
`
`0
`
`3
`
`33
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 21 of 113
`
`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
`
`34.1
`
`21.5
`
`20.8
`
`12.5
`
`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
`
`
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 22 of 113
`
`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
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`56.3
`
`59.2
`
`100.4
`
`17.3
`
`12.2
`
`9.1
`
`16.0
`
`23.8
`
`18.4
`
`28.1
`20.7
`
`23.3
`
`37.5
`
`8.6
`
`18.2
`
`16.6
`16.3
`13.4
`
`16.7
`
`8.0
`
`20
`
`23.9
`25.2
`
`100
`80
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 23 of 113
`
`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
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`Improper Venue
`Intra-District Transfer
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Jury Verdict
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`MDL Transfer
`Other Settlement
`Other Termination
`Referral to Arbitration
`Remand to State Court
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`2
`
`23
`32
`10
`1
`
`12
`12
`
`45
`21
`
`6
`
`37
`20
`
`2
`
`0
`
`152
`
`83
`
`100
`
`200
`
`400
`300
`Number of Cases
`
`500
`
`600
`
`700
`
`648
`
`Average Time to Termination by
`Outcome
`
`
`
`Bankruptcy Stay
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Consolidated
`Default Judgment
`Improper Venue
`Intra-District Transfer
`Involuntary Dismissal
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`Jury Verdict
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`MDL Transfer
`Other Settlement
`Other Termination
`Referral to Arbitration
`Remand to State Court
`Summary Judgment
`Transfer
`Voluntary Dismissal
`Want of Prosecution
`
`25.9
`26.8
`
`35.5
`
`9.0
`
`5.0
`6.4
`
`9.3
`
`3.4
`
`8.0
`6.0
`
`11.6
`
`19.9
`
`16.6
`
`17.1
`19.9
`
`22.5
`
`0
`
`5
`
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`35
`
`40
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 24 of 113
`
`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 California Northern 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
`
`450
`
`400
`
`350
`
`300
`
`250
`
`200
`
`150
`
`100
`
`50
`
`0
`
`Number of Terminations
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 25 of 113
`
`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
`
`5.9
`
`12.0
`
`11.3
`
`11.9
`
`65.9
`
`48.0
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`3.1
`6.9
`
`1.7
`
`14.6
`
`12.4
`
`11.5
`16.2
`14.7
`15.7
`
`11.4
`
`29.9
`
`6.0
`7.2
`7.4
`
`2.1
`1.5
`
`2.1
`
`18.8
`13.2
`
`8.5
`11.2
`
`10.4
`15.7
`
`4.5
`
`19.1
`22.7
`60
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`70
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 26 of 113
`
`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
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`47.6
`
`59.2
`
`100.4
`
`17.6
`
`12.2
`
`9.1
`
`16.0
`
`23.9
`
`19.8
`29.3
`20.7
`
`19.6
`
`32.1
`
`8.8
`13.6
`
`5.3
`
`16.6
`16.3
`15.7
`
`16.7
`12.6
`
`33.1
`25.2
`100 120
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 27 of 113
`
`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
`
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Breyer
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Conti
`Corley
`Cousins
`Davila
`DeMarchi
`Donato
`Fogel
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Henderson
`Hixson
`Illston
`James
`Keulen
`Kim
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Ryu
`Seeborg
`Smith
`Spero
`Tigar
`Tse
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`56.3
`
`59.2
`
`100.4
`
`17.3
`
`12.2
`
`9.1
`
`16.0
`
`23.8
`
`18.4
`
`28.1
`20.7
`
`23.3
`
`37.5
`
`8.6
`
`18.2
`
`16.6
`16.3
`13.4
`
`16.7
`
`8.0
`
`23.9
`25.2
`
`100
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 28 of 113
`
`Case and Judgment Outcomes
`The number of outcomes by judgment, the patentee win rate for those outcomes, and the average time to
`termination for those outcomes for this court are shown below, broken out by type of outcome.
`
`Number of Judgments
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Total
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`183
`
`2
`
`23
`
`10
`
`83
`
`12
`
`3
`
`13
`
`37
`
`16.4
`
`50.0
`
`43.5
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`75.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`21.5
`
`25.9
`
`26.8
`
`19.9
`
`16.6
`
`35.5
`
`13.8
`
`30.4
`
`22.5
`
`Detailed information about these cases, broken out by type of outcome, is shown in the following sections.
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 29 of 113
`
`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
`
`Freeman
`
`35.5
`
`Ryu
`
`16.3
`
`0
`
`5
`
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`35
`
`40
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 30 of 113
`
`Bench Trial
`
`District
`
`Freeman
`
`Ryu
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`25.9
`
`35.5
`
`16.3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 31 of 113
`
`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
`
`17
`
`Month of Litigation
`
`36
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Bench Trial
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Bench Trial
`
`50.0
`
`50.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 32 of 113
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Case Number
`4:14cv03909
`
`Judge
`Ryu
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 16.3
`
`5:13cv04057
`
`Freeman
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 35.5
`
`Case Name
`AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas
`Fluorescence Laboratories,
`Inc.
`Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.
`Merck & Co, Inc. et al
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 33 of 113
`
`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
`13.9
`
`Alsup
`Chhabria
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Illston
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Seeborg
`Tigar
`White
`0
`
`38.9
`
`40.9
`
`6.5
`
`4.1
`
`4.5
`
`5.3
`
`11.8
`
`28.4
`
`16.6
`
`14.5
`
`15.6
`
`10
`
`60
`50
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`70
`
`79.7
`80
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 34 of 113
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Chhabria
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Seeborg
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`26.8
`
`13.9
`
`6.5
`
`38.9
`
`40.9
`
`4.1
`
`11.8
`
`4.5
`
`5.3
`
`28.4
`
`16.6
`
`14.5
`
`15.6
`
`79.7
`
`23
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 35 of 113
`
`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
`
`17
`
`18
`16
`Month of Litigation
`
`20
`
`28
`
`57
`
`97
`
`126
`
`63
`
`39
`
`21
`
`5
`
`7
`
`12
`
`11
`
`14
`
`15
`
`6
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Consent Judgment
`
`56.5
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`43.5
`
`
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 36 of 113
`
`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
`
`Alsup
`
`Chhabria
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Illston
`
`Seeborg
`
`White
`
`24.2
`
`26.1
`
`25.2
`
`12.4
`
`12.2
`
`14.8
`
`16.4
`
`20.8
`
`0
`
`4
`
`20
`16
`12
`8
`Months from Case Filing
`
`24
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 37 of 113
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Chhabria
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Illston
`
`Seeborg
`
`White
`
`19.9
`
`24.2
`
`12.4
`
`26.1
`
`25.2
`
`14.8
`
`16.4
`
`20.8
`
`12.2
`
`10
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 38 of 113
`
`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
`
`12
`
`15
`
`13
`
`21
`
`25
`17
`Month of Litigation
`
`26
`
`32
`
`31
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`Default Judgment
`
`The patentee and accused infringer win rates for cases with this outcome are shown below for the judges and
`the district as a whole.
`
`Win Rates
`For Default Judgment
`
`100.0
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`
`
`0.0
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 39 of 113
`
`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
`
`Kim
`
`5.0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`3
`2
`Months from Case Filing
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 40 of 113
`
`Improper Venue
`
`District
`
`Kim
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`5.0
`
`5.0
`
`1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 41 of 113
`
`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
`
`5
`Month of Litigation
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 42 of 113
`
`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
`6.5
`5.1
`4.8
`4.5
`
`63.2
`
`14.8
`17.6
`20.7
`
`120.1
`
`100.4
`
`7.0
`6.5
`6.3
`9.7
`6.7
`3.3
`8.0
`
`21.9
`20
`
`100
`80
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`140
`
`Alsup
`Chen
`Chhabria
`Cousins
`Davila
`Donato
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Hixson
`Illston
`Koh
`Laporte
`Rogers
`Seeborg
`Spero
`Tigar
`White
`0
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 43 of 113
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Chen
`
`Chhabria
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`Hamilton
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Rogers
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`16.6
`
`6.5
`
`5.1
`
`4.8
`
`4.5
`
`63.2
`
`14.8
`
`17.6
`
`20.7
`
`120.1
`
`100.4
`
`7.0
`
`6.5
`
`6.3
`
`9.7
`
`6.7
`
`3.3
`
`8.0
`
`21.9
`
`83
`
`5
`
`4
`
`9
`
`1
`
`4
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`2
`
`15
`
`1
`
`10
`
`2
`
`1
`
`4
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-12 Filed 02/23/21 Page 44 of 113
`
`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
`
`14