LegalMetric Individual Judge Report
`Judge Susan Yvonne Illston
`Patent Cases
`May 1995 to September 2019
`
`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.
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 1
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Total Cases and Judgments
`Judge Illston was appointed to the bench on May 26, 1995. This judge has been assigned 270 patent cases. Of
`these, 252 cases have been terminated. There have been judgments in favor of a party (includes consent and
`default judgments) in 57 case(s). The patent owner prevailed in 21.1% of these cases (while the accused
`infringer prevailed in 78.9% 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.)
`
`Illston
`
`Nation
`
`Total
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`Pendency (All Cases)
`Judgment Pendency
`Contested Pendency
`Trial Pendency
`
`21.1
`9.5
`36.4
`15.7
`27.3
`30.6
`48.5
`
`55.3
`22.0
`62.0
`12.3
`20.9
`26.7
`36.7
`
`Overall Win Rate
`Contested Win Rate
`Trial Win Rate
`Pendency (All Cases)
`Judgment Pendency
`Contested Pendency
`Trial Pendency
`
`21.1
`9.5
`36.4
`15.7
`27.3
`30.6
`48.5
`
`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
`
`26
`
`19
`
`16
`
`14
`
`17
`
`14
`
`13
`
`11
`
`8
`
`7
`
`4
`
`13
`
`12 12 12
`
`10 10
`
`9
`
`9
`
`9
`
`7
`
`6
`
`8
`
`2
`
`1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`1992
`1994
`1996
`1998
`2000
`2002
`2004
`2006
`2008
`2010
`2012
`2014
`2016
`2018
`1991
`1993
`1995
`1997
`1999
`2001
`2003
`2005
`2007
`2009
`2011
`2013
`2015
`2017
`2019
`
`28
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`0
`
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The number of patent
`cases assigned to
`Judge Illston 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.
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 2
`
`

`

`The number of patent
`cases decided by
`Judge Illston 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.
`
`Number of Cases Decided, by Year
`
`18
`
`14
`
`14
`
`13
`
`12
`
`11
`
`11
`
`17
`
`15
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4 4
`
`2
`
`2
`
`24
`
`21
`
`14
`
`9
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`0 0
`1992
`1994
`1996
`1998
`2000
`2002
`2004
`2006
`2008
`2010
`2012
`2014
`2016
`2018
`1991
`1993
`1995
`1997
`1999
`2001
`2003
`2005
`2007
`2009
`2011
`2013
`2015
`2017
`2019
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`0
`
`
`Number of Cases
`
`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.
`
`ne- and Five-Year Percentage of Cases for This Judge
`
`Cases Filed in Last Five
`Years
`Cases Filed in Last Year
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`Oakland
`
`12.3
`
`7.7
`
`San Francisco
`Court
`
`Total
`
`0.0
`0.0
`San Jose
`
`14
`
`12
`
`10
`
`02468
`
`Percentage of Total Cases FiledO
`
`Percentage of Cases Filed in
`Last Five Years
`4.1
`
`Percentage of Cases Filed in
`Last Year
`6.5
`
`0.0
`
`7.7
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`12.3
`
`0.0
`
`Total
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 3
`
`

`

`Patent Case Outcomes for Judge Illston: The chart below shows the breakdown, by case outcome, for
`closed cases of this judge.
`
`Case Outcomes for Judge
`
`Want of Prosecution
`0.4%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`55.2%
`
`Bench Trial
`0.8%
`Consent Judgment
`5.2%
`Consolidated
`3.6%
`Default Judgment
`0.8%
`Intra-District Transfer
`5.6%
`Involuntary Dismissal
`1.2%
`Judgment as a Matter
`of Law
`
`0.4%
`Jury Verdict
`3.6%
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`0.4%
`
`Total
`
`Total
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Consolidated
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Judgment as a Matter of L
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`MDL Transfer
`
`Other Settlement
`
`Other Termination
`
`Remand to State Court
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`
`Want of Prosecution
`
`252
`
`2
`
`13
`
`9
`
`2
`
`14
`
`3
`
`1
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`21
`
`4
`
`2
`
`25
`
`4
`
`139
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 4
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Contested Judgments
`There have been 42 contested judgments in these cases (does not include consent and default judgments). The
`patent owner prevailed in 9.5% of these cases, while the accused infringer prevailed in 90.5% 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
`
`90.5
`
`78.0
`
`Illston
`Nation
`
`22.0
`
`9.5
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Contested Win Rate by Year
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`Percentage
`
`Contested Win Rate (Percentage)
`
`0
`
`
`
`1992
`
`1994
`
`1996
`
`1998
`
`2000
`
`2008
`2006
`2004
`2002
`Year of Decision
`
`2010
`
`2012
`
`2014
`
`2016
`
`2018
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 5
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Trials
`There have been 11 terminations by trial in these cases (includes both bench and jury trials). The patent owner
`prevailed in 36.4% of these case, while the accused infringer prevailed in 63.6% 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
`
`62.0
`
`63.6
`
`36.4
`
`38.0
`
`Illston
`Nation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 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
`
`William J. Clinton
`1,425
`
`Barack Obama
`1,242
`
`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
`William J. Clinton
`Total:
`
`40.0%
`6.3%
`7.6%
`0.3%
`45.8%
`100.0%
`
`Jimmy Carter
`9
`George W. Bush
`237
`
`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
`
`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
`Judgements
`
`Barack Obama
`
`George Bush
`
`George W. Bush
`
`Jimmy Carter
`
`William J. Clinton
`
`19.4
`
`40.9
`
`34.3
`
`0.0
`
`37.2
`
`155
`
`22
`
`35
`
`1
`
`242
`
`8.3
`
`18.8
`
`4.3
`
`0.0
`
`13.0
`
`121
`
`16
`
`23
`
`1
`
`161
`
`47.6
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`48.5
`
`21
`
`3
`
`1
`
`0
`
`33
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 7
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Markman Rulings
`There were 51 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 23.1 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
`1991
`
`1993
`
`1995
`
`1997
`
`1999
`
`2001
`
`2003
`
`2005
`
`2007
`
`2009
`
`2011
`
`2013
`
`2015
`
`2017
`
`2019
`
`Overview:
`Summary Judgment
`There were 151 summary judgment rulings on contested motions in these cases. The win rate on these
`contested motions was 43.7%. 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
`1991
`
`1993
`
`1995
`
`1997
`
`1999
`
`2001
`
`2003
`
`2005
`
`2007
`
`2009
`
`2011
`
`2013
`
`2015
`
`2017
`
`2019
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 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
`
`
`
`2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Total
`
`Stay Pending
`Reexam Win Rate
`20.0
`
`# of Stay Pending
`Reexam Decisions
`5
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`Win Rate
`63.6
`
`# of Stay Pending IPR
`Decisions
`11
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`0.0
`
`66.7
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1
`
`0
`
`1
`
`0
`
`Total
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 9
`
`

`

`Overview:
`Time to Disposition-All Cases
`The average time from case filing to case disposition by Judge Illston is 15.7 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 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293032343536373839404243444749
`Month of Litigation
`
`16
`
`14
`
`12
`
`10
`
`02468
`
`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 27.3 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 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293032343536373839404243444749
`Month of Litigation
`
`012345678
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 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 30.6 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 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293032343536373839404243444749
`Month of Litigation
`
`0123456
`
`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
`48.5 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 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293032343536373839404243444749
`Month of Litigation
`
`3
`
`2.5
`
`2
`
`1.5
`
`1
`
`0.5
`
`0
`
`Number of Closed Cases
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 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
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Patentee Win Rate Accused Infringer
`21.1
`78.9
`
`0.0
`
`46.2
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`44.4
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`53.8
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`55.6
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`Case Win Rates, by Outcome
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`53.8
`
`46.2
`
`55.6
`
`44.4
`
`Patentee
`Accused Infringer
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`Bench Trial
`Consent Judgment
`Default Judgment
`
`Judgment as a
`Involuntary
`Matter of Law
`Dismissal
`
`Other Termination
`Jury Verdict
`
`Sum mary
`Judgment
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 12
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`There was/were 2 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 88.5. 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 Bench Trial
`
`40
`
`49
`
`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
`Szoka et al v. Woodle et al
`3:02cv05524
`Carnegie Mellon Univ, et al
`3:95cv03524
`v. Hoffman-La Roche, et al
`
`Outcome
`Bench Trial
`Bench Trial
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 39.5
` 137.6
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 13
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`There was/were 13 case(s) terminated by Consent Judgment. The patentee win rate was 46.2% and the accused
`infringer win rate was 53.8%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 19.1. 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 Consent Judgment
`
`2
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`23
`
`49
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`3:04cv03526
`
`3:07cv00303
`
`Outcome
`Consent Judgment
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 10.4
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Patentee
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Patentee
`
`Consent Judgment
`Consent Judgment
`
`Patentee
`Patentee
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 54.3
`
` 16.2
`
` 5.1
` 16.8
`
` 82.2
`
` 22.5
`
` 9.0
`
` 9.0
`
` 8.9
`
` 9.0
`
` 1.1
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Tilia International, Inc. v.
`3:02cv02999
`Impak Corporation et al
`Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC
`Guardian Anti-Theft
`Products, Inc. et al
`Vistan Corporation v. Pan
`American Engineering and
`Equipment Co., Inc. et al
`Chemical Soil v. Desin, et al 3:95cv03339
`ACCO Brands, Inc v. Port
`3:99cv04572
`Incorporated, et al
`NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v.
`3Com Corporation et al
`Natera, Inc. v. Sequenom,
`Inc
`Optimum Power Solutions
`LLC v. Panasonic
`Corporation of North
`America
`Optimum Power Solutions
`LLC v. Hewlett-Packard
`Company
`Optimum Power Solutions
`LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc.
`Optimum Power Solutions
`LLC v. Lenovo (United
`States) Inc.
`NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v.
`Intel Corporation
`
`3:09cv00602
`
`3:12cv00132
`
`3:12cv03123
`
`3:12cv03125
`
`3:12cv03126
`
`3:12cv03127
`
`3:15cv05273
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 14
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`There was/were 13 case(s) terminated by Consent Judgment. The patentee win rate was 46.2% and the accused
`infringer win rate was 53.8%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 19.1. 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 Consent Judgment
`
`2
`
`5
`
`6
`
`11
`10
`9
`Month of Litigation
`
`17
`
`23
`
`49
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Decadent Minimalist, Inc. v.
`3:17cv05467
`Curv Group, LLC
`
`Outcome
`Consent Judgment
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 4.1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 15
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`There was/were 2 case(s) terminated by Default Judgment. 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 10.5. 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 Default Judgment
`
`9
`
`13
`
`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
`Tera Systems, Inc. v. Intime
`3:04cv00224
`Software, Inc.
`Electronics for Imag v.
`Photoscript Group, et al
`
`3:98cv02759
`
`Outcome
`Default Judgment
`
`Prevailing Party
`Patentee
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Patentee
`
`Pendency
` 8.2
`
` 12.9
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 16
`
`

`

`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 14.7. 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
`
`10
`Month of Litigation
`
`29
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Juvenon,Inc., v.
`3:04cv04804
`Vitacost.com,Inc.,
`Alcatel USA Inc. v. Orckit, et
`al
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al
`
`3:99cv04468
`
`3:18cv04991
`
`Outcome
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 28.9
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 6.2
`
` 9.0
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 17
`
`

`

`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Judgment as a Matter of Law. 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 25.8.
`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 Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`26
`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
`Sextant Avionique,SA v.
`3:95cv02838
`Analog Devices Inc
`
`Outcome
`Judgment as a Matter
`of Law
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 25.8
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 18
`
`

`

`Jury Verdict
`There was/were 9 case(s) terminated by Jury Verdict. The patentee win rate was 44.4% and the accused infringer
`win rate was 55.6%. The average time to case termination in months from case filing was 39.6. 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
`
`11
`
`20
`
`23
`
`35
`Month of Litigation
`
`38
`
`43
`
`49
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`3:02cv00790
`
`3:02cv01426
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Mentor Graphics Corp, et al
`3:00cv01030
`v. Quickturn Design Sys, et
`al
`Boston Scientific
`Corporation et al v. Johnson
`& Johnson et al
`Mentor Graphics
`Corporation v. Quickturn
`Design Systems, Inc. et al
`Postx Corporation v. Secure
`Data In Motion, Inc et al
`PostX Corporation v. Secure
`Data In Motion, Inc. et al
`Pixion,Inc. v. Placeware, Inc. 3:03cv02909
`Interface Design Grp, et al v.
`3:99cv03408
`Diversified Data, et al
`Mentor Graphics Corp v.
`Quickturn Designs, et al
`Verinata Health, Inc. et al v.
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al
`
`3:02cv04483
`
`3:03cv00521
`
`3:99cv05464
`
`3:12cv05501
`
`Outcome
`Jury Verdict
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 34.9
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Jury Verdict
`Jury Verdict
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Patentee
`
`Patentee
`
`Accused Infringer
`Patentee
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Patentee
`
` 88.7
`
` 10.9
`
` 42.2
`
` 37.5
`
` 19.8
` 22.0
`
` 37.7
`
` 63.1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 19
`
`

`

`Other Termination
`There was/were 2 case(s) terminated by Other Termination. 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 5.9. 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 Outcomes by Month
`For Other Termination
`
`6
`
`7
`
`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
`Priceplay.com Inc. v. Google
`3:14cv04828
`Inc.
`Priceplay.com Inc. v.
`Facebook Inc.
`
`3:14cv04830
`
`Outcome
`Other Termination
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 6.1
`
`Other Termination
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 5.7
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 20
`
`

`

`Summary Judgment
`There was/were 25 case(s) terminated by Summary Judgment. 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 26.7. 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 Summary Judgment
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`15
`
`19
`
`27
`25
`24
`23
`Month of Litigation
`
`29
`
`30
`
`32
`
`37
`
`49
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`3:00cv02296
`
`3:01cv00415
`
`3:01cv02258
`
`3:03cv04447
`
`3:03cv04969
`
`3:05cv04074
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Storage Technology v. Cisco
`3:00cv01176
`Systems, Inc.
`Acco Brands Inc v. Micro
`Security Devic
`Carnegie Mellon v.
`Hoffmann-La Roche, et al
`Composite Rotor, Inc, et al
`v. Beckman Couler, Inc., et
`al
`Keithley v. The Home
`Store.Com, Inc. et al
`Transonic Systems, Inc. v.
`Fresenius USA, Inc. et al
`General Atomics, Diazyme
`Laboratories Division
`("General
`Atomics") v.
`Axis-Shield ASA
`Space Systems/Loral v.
`Lockheed Martin Corp, et al
`Teknowledge Corporation v.
`Cellco Partnership
`Genentech, Inc. et al v.
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland
`GMBH et al
`Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix,
`Inc. et al
`Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix
`Systems, Inc.
`
`3:96cv03418
`
`3:08cv03063
`
`3:08cv04909
`
`3:09cv01027
`
`3:09cv03496
`
`Outcome
`Summary Judgment
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 23.5
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 26.4
`
` 73.9
`
` 23.7
`
` 65.1
`
` 28.9
`
` 18.7
`
` 58.9
`
` 10.8
`
` 29.8
`
` 10.1
`
` 36.5
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 21
`
`

`

`Summary Judgment
`There was/were 25 case(s) terminated by Summary Judgment. 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 26.7. 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 Summary Judgment
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`15
`
`19
`
`27
`25
`24
`23
`Month of Litigation
`
`29
`
`30
`
`32
`
`37
`
`49
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland
`3:09cv04919
`GMBH v. Genentech, Inc. et
`al
`Kilopass Technology, Inc. v.
`Sidense Corporation
`Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5
`Networks, Inc.
`Implicit Networks, Inc. v.
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc v.
`Sequenom, Inc
`Bascom Research, LLC v.
`Facebook, Inc.
`Bascom Research, LLC v.
`Linkedin Corporation
`Tse v. Google Inc., et al.
`TSE v. Blockbuster, L.L.C.
`Skyworks Solutions, Inc. v.
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc.
`Kreative Power, LLC v.
`Monoprice, Inc.
`Cave Consulting Group, Inc.
`v. Truven Health Analytics
`Inc.
`Illumina, Inc. et al v. Ariosa
`Diagnostics, Inc. et al
`
`3:14cv02991
`
`3:15cv02177
`
`3:18cv02847
`
`3:10cv02066
`
`3:10cv03365
`
`3:10cv04234
`
`3:11cv06391
`
`3:12cv06293
`
`3:12cv06294
`
`3:13cv00194
`3:13cv01204
`3:14cv00010
`
`Outcome
`Summary Judgment
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 18.0
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`Summary Judgment
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Accused Infringer
`
` 28.6
`
` 31.5
`
` 29.8
`
` 22.4
`
` 24.8
`
` 24.8
`
` 10.8
` 8.7
` 14.9
`
` 8.2
`
` 31.7
`
` 7.8
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 22
`
`

`

`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 9 case(s) terminated by Consolidation. The average time to case termination in months from case filing
`was 8.4. 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 Consolidation
`
`1
`
`3
`
`11
`8
`Month of Litigation
`
`23
`
`28
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`3:05cv02554
`
`3:07cv04617
`
`3:09cv01342
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Mentor Graphics Corp v.
`3:00cv03291
`Quickturn Design Sys, et al
`Cashedge,Inc., v.
`Yodlee,Inc.,
`General Instrument
`Corporation v. Macrovision
`Corporation
`Implicit Networks Inc. v.
`International Business
`Machines Corporation et al
`Implicit Networks, Inc. v.
`VMWare, Inc. et al
`Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix Systems
`Inc. et al
`Symantec Corporation v.
`Veeam Software
`Corporation
`Symantec Corporation v.
`Veeam Software
`Corporation
`Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa
`Diagnostics, Inc. et al
`
`3:10cv00720
`
`3:11cv00694
`
`3:12cv01035
`
`3:12cv05443
`
`3:15cv02216
`
`Outcome
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Consolidation
`
`Pendency
` 27.8
`
` 2.0
`
` 0.7
`
` 22.4
`
` 7.1
`
` 2.1
`
` 0.3
`
` 10.2
`
` 2.8
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 23
`
`

`

`Intra-District Transfer
`There was/were 14 case(s) terminated by Intra-District Transfer. The average time to case termination in months from case
`filing was 4.2. 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 Intra-District Transfer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`6
`4
`Month of Litigation
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`3.2
`
`2.8
`
`2.4
`
`2
`
`1.6
`
`1.2
`
`0.8
`
`0.4
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`5:05cv00810
`
`5:06cv02889
`
`3:10cv02337
`3:11cv00494
`
`3:11cv01208
`3:11cv00671
`
`3:11cv02186
`
`3:11cv04407
`
`Outcome
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Pendency
` 4.0
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
`Intra-District Transfer
`
` 0.4
`
` 3.4
`
` 1.2
` 1.3
`
` 8.4
` 9.0
`
` 7.4
`
` 2.7
`
` 7.8
`
` 7.8
`
` 0.2
`
` 5.6
`
` 0.0
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC
`4:04cv03526
`Guardian Anti-Theft
`Products, Inc. et al
`Applied Materials Israel, Ltd
`v. Negevtech LTD et al
`Oracle Corporation et al v.
`Teilhard Technologies et al
`Aliphcom v. Wi-Lan, Inc.
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v.
`Facebook, Inc. et al
`Tetsuya v. You Tube, LLC
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention
`Investment Fund I LP et al
`Paymentone Corporation v.
`Zong, Inc
`Xilinx, Inc v. Intellectual
`Ventures Management, LLC
`et al
`Evolutionary Intelligence,
`LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`Evolutionary Intelligence,
`LLC v. Groupon, Inc.
`Coho Licensing LLC v.
`Twitter Inc.
`Bluestone Innovations LLC
`v. Bulbrite Industries, Inc.
`Bluestone Innovations LLC
`v. Philips Electronics North
`America Corporation
`
`3:13cv04202
`
`3:13cv04204
`
`3:14cv02718
`
`3:15cv05478
`
`3:15cv05485
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 24
`
`

`

`Lack of Jurisdiction
`There was/were 1 case(s) terminated by Lack of Jurisdiction. The average time to case termination in months from case
`filing was 6.1. 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 Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`7
`Month of Litigation
`
`Outcome
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`
`Pendency
` 6.1
`
`1
`
`0.8
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.2
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`The supporting data is shown below.
`Case Name
`Case Number
`NXP Semiconductors USA,
`3:14cv01225
`Inc. v. France Brevets,
`S.A.S., et al
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1019, Page 25
`
`

`

`MDL Transfer
`There was/were 2 case(s) terminated by MDL Transfer. The average time to case termination in months from case filing
`was 7.5. 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 MDL Transfer
`
`6
`
`10
`
`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
`Acacia Media Technologies
`3:04cv02308
`Corporation v. Comcast
`Corporation et al
`Acacia Media Technologies
`Corporation v. Mediacom
`Communications
`Corporation
`
`3:04cv03789
`
`Outcome
`MDL Transfer
`
`Pendency
` 9.3
`
`MDL