LegalMetric District Report
`California Northern District Court
`in Patent Cases
`
`January 2015-December 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 1020, Page 1
`
`

`

`Overview
`
`This report covers the patent cases of the active judges in the California Northern District Court as of January
`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
`
`
`
`2016
`
`2018
`
`2020
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Pat. Win Rate
`
`Accused Win Rate
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`15.2
`8.3
`64.0
`50.0
`65.2
`
`Overall
`Contested
`Trial
`Bench
`Jury
`
`84.8
`91.7
`36.0
`50.0
`34.8
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`
`Armstrong
`Breyer
`Chesney
`Conti
`Cousins
`DeMarchi
`Fogel
`Gilliam
`Hamilton
`Hixson
`James
`Kim
`Laporte
`Orrick
`Ryu
`Spero
`Westmore
`Wilken
`
`61.5
`
`49.2
`
`13.0
`10.2
`15.2
`18.1
`16.4 29.2
`24.9
`20.225.3
`17.9
`
`38.9
`
`20.6
`
`8.511.2
`5.3
`25.0
`17.216.3
`14.3
`4.415.0
`
`30.4 44.2
`20
`
`0
`
`100.4
`
`80
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Larger Version in Body of Report
`
`100
`
`120
`
`1717
`429
`1288
`230
`192
`25
`
`22
`
`Total Cases
`Open Cases
`Closed Cases
`Judgments
`Contested Judgmnts
`Trials
`Bench
`Jury
`
`3
`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
`
`12.8
`21.4
`20.8
`34.6
`25.9
`35.4
`
`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:
`$17,661,728
`Median:
`$4,900,000
`
`Appeals:
`
`Total
`
`Number of Appeals Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`170
`
`64.8
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 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 CBM Rev.
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`Win Rate
`
`20.8
`
`100.0
`
`65.6
`
`44.4
`
`56.9
`
`36.1
`
`Win Rates on Contested Motions
`
`100.0
`
`65.6
`
`56.9
`
`44.4
`
`20.8
`
`
`
`Sum mary Judgment
`Stay Pending IPR
`Stay Pending CBM Rev.
`Stay Pending Reexam
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`36.1
`
`Transfer
`
`0.0
`TRO
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Number of Decisions
`
`Claim Construction
`109
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`24
`tay Pending CBM
`Rev.
`
`7S
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`77
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Preliminary Injunction
`
`Stay Pending CBM Rev
`
`Stay Pending IPR
`
`Stay Pending Reexam
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Transfer
`
`TRO
`
`109
`
`24
`
`7
`
`77
`
`9
`
`174
`
`36
`
`7
`
`TRO
`7
`Transfer
`36
`
`Summary
`Judgment
`Stay Pending
`Reexam
`
`174
`
`9
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 3
`
`

`

`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
`
`62.8
`
`62.8
`
`62.7
`
`60.0
`
`69.2
`
`94
`
`94
`
`51
`
`30
`
`13
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 4
`
`

`

`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%
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 5
`
`

`

`Breakdown by Division
`The breakdown of patent cases by division is illustrated in the following chart:
`
`Total Patent Cases, by Division
`
`Oakland
`402
`
`San Jose
`455
`
`San
`863
`Francisco
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 6
`
`

`

`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
`11.3%
`Improper Venue
`0.1%
`Default Judgment
`0.6%
`Consolidated
`2.3%
`Consent Judgment
`2.3%
`Bench Trial
`0.2%
`Bankruptcy Stay
`0.1%
`Want of Prosecution
`0.2%
`
`Voluntary Dismissal
`60.6%
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`7.8%
`Judgment as a Matter
`of Law
`0.1%
`Jury Verdict
`1.8%
`Lack of Jurisdiction
`0.9%
`Other Settlement
`3.8%
`Other Termination
`1.6%
`Remand to State
`Court
`
`0.5%
`Summary Judgment
`4.2%
`Transfer
`1.7%
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 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
`
`
`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`84
`
`83
`
`77
`
`80
`
`77
`
`85
`
`83
`
`94
`
`106
`
`99
`
`151
`
`111
`
`92
`
`40
`
`60
`
`80
`
`100 120 140 160
`
`0
`
`0
`
`14
`
`33
`
`4
`
`28
`
`40
`
`17
`
`50
`
`64
`
`26
`
`36
`
`46
`
`33
`
`12
`
`13
`19
`
`9
`
`15
`
`17
`
`19
`20
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 8
`
`

`

`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Armstrong
`
`Beeler
`
`Chen
`
`Chesney
`
`Chhabria
`
`Corley
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`DeMarchi
`
`Donato
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`Hamilton
`
`All Cases
`
`Last Three Years
`
`1717
`
`869
`
`84
`
`14
`
`33
`
`83
`
`4
`
`77
`
`28
`
`40
`
`94
`
`17
`
`106
`
`151
`
`99
`
`50
`
`64
`
`47
`
`0
`
`22
`
`47
`
`0
`
`38
`
`20
`
`23
`
`42
`
`17
`
`45
`
`111
`
`44
`
`0
`
`21
`
`10
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`James
`
`Keulen
`
`Kim
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Ryu
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`Westmore
`
`White
`
`Wilken
`
`12
`
`80
`
`13
`
`19
`
`26
`
`77
`
`36
`
`9
`
`46
`
`85
`
`15
`
`83
`
`33
`
`111
`
`17
`
`92
`
`19
`
`35
`
`8
`
`19
`
`17
`
`49
`
`11
`
`2
`
`8
`
`39
`
`9
`
`46
`
`18
`
`62
`
`13
`
`46
`
`0
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 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
`
`23.4
`
`11.7
`
`4.8
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Contested Patentee Win Rate
`
`12.3
`
`8.9
`
`1.8
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Patentee Trial Win Rate
`
`91
`
`45
`
`33
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`8
`
`4
`
`0
`
`14
`
`12
`
`10
`
`02468
`
`Percentage
`
`Percentage
`
`100
`
`80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`Plaintiff Win Rate/
`No. of Judgments
`15.2
`230
`
`4.8
`
`23.4
`
`11.7
`
`63
`
`107
`
`60
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Contested Win Rate/
`Number Contested
`8.3
`192
`
`1.8
`
`12.3
`
`8.9
`
`55
`
`81
`
`56
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Trial Win Rate/
`Number of Trials
`64.0
`25
`
`33.3
`
`90.9
`
`45.5
`
`3
`
`11
`
`11
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 10
`
`

`

`PETITIONERS
`
`Exhibit 1020, Page 11
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 11
`
`

`

`Complete Affirmance Rate
`
`72.5
`
`60.6
`
`53.3
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Average Time to Termination by Judgment
`
`28.3
`
`20.3
`
`16.0
`
`
`
`MDL
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`32
`
`28
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`Percentage
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`Complete Aff. Rate/
`Number of Appeals
`64.8
`88
`
`60.6
`
`72.5
`
`53.3
`
`33
`
`40
`
`15
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`Time to Term./
`Number of Judgmts.
`21.4
`230
`
`28.3
`
`20.3
`
`16.0
`
`63
`
`107
`
`60
`
`District
`
`Oakland
`
`San Francisco
`
`San Jose
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 12
`
`

`

`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
`17.9%
`
`
`82.1%
`
`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.
`
`Number of Judgments Overall Win Rate Contested Win Rate Trial Win Rate
`
`Bench Trial
`
`Consent Judgment
`
`Default Judgment
`
`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`2
`
`30
`
`8
`
`100
`
`1
`
`23
`
`12
`
`54
`
`50.0
`
`36.7
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`65.2
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`65.2
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`50.0
`
`65.2
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 13
`
`

`

`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 54.8%, 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
`
`
`
`2015
`
`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
`
`
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`100
`
`90
`
`80
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Number of Cases
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 14
`
`

`

`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.
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`Patentee Wins
`
` Total Decisions Patentee Win Rate Acc. Infr. Win Rate
`
`9
`
`10
`
`4
`
`6
`
`5
`
`1
`
`68
`
`39
`
`26
`
`48
`
`47
`
`2
`
`13.2
`
`25.6
`
`15.4
`
`12.5
`
`10.6
`
`50.0
`
`86.8
`
`74.4
`
`84.6
`
`87.5
`
`89.4
`
`50.0
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`9.1
`
`20.0
`
`10.0
`
`50.0
`
`40.0
`
`27.3
`
`75.0
`
`12.5
`10.0
`
`14.3
`
`7.1
`
`20
`
`54.5
`
`25.0
`
`37.5
`
`27.3
`
`100.0
`
`100.0
`
`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`0.0
`Wilken
`0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 16
`
`

`

`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
`
`12.5
`
`7.7
`
`50.0
`
`40.0
`
`66.7
`
`20.0
`
`13.3
`
`9.1
`
`16.7
`
`20
`
`33.3
`
`100.0
`
`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`0.0
`White
`0.0
`Wilken
`0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`0.0
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 17
`
`

`

`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
`
`Armstrong
`
`Beeler
`
`Chen
`
`Chesney
`
`Chhabria
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`15.2
`
`9.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`20.0
`
`50.0
`
`10.0
`
`40.0
`
`75.0
`
`27.3
`
`12.5
`
`10.0
`
`0.0
`
`230
`
`11
`
`3
`
`2
`
`10
`
`2
`
`20
`
`5
`
`4
`
`11
`
`16
`
`10
`
`19
`
`8.3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`12.5
`
`50.0
`
`7.7
`
`40.0
`
`66.7
`
`20.0
`
`13.3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`192
`
`10
`
`3
`
`2
`
`8
`
`2
`
`13
`
`5
`
`3
`
`10
`
`15
`
`8
`
`19
`
`11
`
`Hamilton
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Ryu
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`Wilken
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`14.3
`
`0.0
`
`25.0
`
`100.0
`
`54.5
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`37.5
`
`0.0
`
`27.3
`
`7.1
`
`0.0
`
`11
`
`2
`
`14
`
`17
`
`4
`
`1
`
`11
`
`18
`
`1
`
`8
`
`2
`
`11
`
`14
`
`3
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`9.1
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`33.3
`
`0.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`16.7
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`2
`
`11
`
`16
`
`3
`
`0
`
`6
`
`17
`
`1
`
`5
`
`2
`
`6
`
`11
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 18
`
`

`

`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
`1,446
`
`Barack Obama
`1,339
`
`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:
`
`41.4%
`6.0%
`7.7%
`0.3%
`44.7%
`100.0%
`
`Jimmy Carter
`9
`George W. Bush
`249
`
`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
`Jugements
`
`Barack Obama
`
`George Bush
`
`George W. Bush
`
`Jimmy Carter
`
`William J. Clinton
`
`18.8
`
`40.9
`
`32.4
`
`0.0
`
`36.7
`
`170
`
`22
`
`37
`
`1
`
`245
`
`8.3
`
`18.8
`
`4.2
`
`0.0
`
`12.8
`
`132
`
`16
`
`24
`
`1
`
`164
`
`50.0
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`48.5
`
`22
`
`3
`
`1
`
`0
`
`33
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 19
`
`

`

`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
`
`34.6
`
`21.4
`
`20.8
`
`12.8
`
`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
`
`
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Months from Case Filing
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 20
`
`

`

`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`12.9
`
`10.2
`
`12.2
`
`11.1
`
`61.5
`
`49.2
`
`16.4
`
`28.3
`
`24.9
`
`19.0
`27.3
`
`17.9
`
`18.3
`
`38.9
`
`28.1
`
`8.3
`13.4
`
`17.3
`16.3
`11.7
`
`13.7
`
`4.4
`
`100.4
`
`27.3
`
`44.2
`
`20
`
`100
`80
`60
`40
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 21
`
`

`

`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
`
`781
`
`500
`400
`300
`Number of Cases
`
`600
`
`700
`
`800
`
`146
`100
`
`30
`29
`
`12
`
`81
`
`1
`
`23
`12
`
`49
`21
`
`6
`
`22
`
`54
`
`2
`
`0
`
`100
`
`200
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`26.4
`25.9
`25.0
`
`29.2
`
`35.4
`
`20.1
`
`15.7
`
`16.9
`18.0
`
`22.9
`
`4.8
`5.0
`5.1
`
`8.4
`
`3.4
`
`7.3
`6.0
`
`12.1
`
`0
`
`5
`
`30
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`35
`
`40
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 22
`
`

`

`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
`
`400
`
`350
`
`300
`
`250
`
`200
`
`150
`
`100
`
`50
`
`0
`
`Number of Terminations
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 23
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`10.7
`
`7.0
`
`11.5
`
`14.6
`
`5.4
`5.3
`
`3.3
`
`13.5
`
`10.0
`
`34.8
`
`14.3
`14.0
`14.3
`17.0
`
`12.8
`
`16.7
`13.6
`
`2.0
`1.6
`4.9
`7.3
`8.2
`
`1.8
`
`6.9
`
`4.1
`
`10.9
`8.8
`
`12.9
`
`19.3
`
`25.0
`50
`40
`30
`20
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`55.6
`
`55.3
`
`60
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 24
`
`

`

`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`13.0
`
`10.2
`
`15.2
`
`18.1
`
`61.5
`
`49.2
`
`16.4
`
`29.2
`
`24.9
`
`20.2
`25.3
`17.9
`
`20.6
`
`38.9
`
`100.4
`
`8.5
`11.2
`5.3
`
`25.0
`17.2
`16.3
`14.3
`
`4.4
`
`15.0
`
`30.4
`
`44.2
`100 120
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 25
`
`

`

`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
`Spero
`Tigar
`Westmore
`White
`Wilken
`0
`
`12.9
`
`10.2
`
`12.2
`
`11.1
`
`61.5
`
`49.2
`
`16.4
`
`28.3
`
`24.9
`
`19.0
`27.3
`17.9
`
`18.3
`
`38.9
`
`28.1
`
`8.3
`13.4
`
`17.3
`16.3
`11.7
`
`13.7
`
`4.4
`
`100.4
`
`27.3
`
`44.2
`
`100
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 26
`
`

`

`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
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law
`
`Jury Verdict
`
`Other Termination
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`230
`
`2
`
`30
`
`8
`
`100
`
`1
`
`23
`
`12
`
`54
`
`15.2
`
`50.0
`
`36.7
`
`100.0
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`65.2
`
`0.0
`
`0.0
`
`21.4
`
`25.9
`
`25.0
`
`20.1
`
`15.7
`
`29.2
`
`35.4
`
`24.8
`
`22.9
`
`Detailed information about these cases, broken out by type of outcome, is shown in the following sections.
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 27
`
`

`

`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 28
`
`

`

`Bench Trial
`
`District
`
`Freeman
`
`Ryu
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`25.9
`
`35.5
`
`16.3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 29
`
`

`

`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 30
`
`

`

`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 31
`
`

`

`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
`Chen
`Chhabria
`Freeman
`Gilliam
`Illston
`Koh
`Laporte
`Lloyd
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Seeborg
`Tigar
`White
`0
`
`31.0
`
`34.1
`
`38.9
`
`19.1
`
`29.1
`
`11.8
`
`4.5
`
`5.3
`
`21.2
`
`16.6
`
`14.5
`
`16.7
`
`10
`
`40
`30
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`50
`
`56.8
`60
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 32
`
`

`

`Consent Judgment
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Chen
`
`Chhabria
`
`Freeman
`
`Gilliam
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Lloyd
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Seeborg
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`25.0
`
`13.9
`
`31.0
`
`34.1
`
`38.9
`
`19.1
`
`29.1
`
`11.8
`
`4.5
`
`5.3
`
`21.2
`
`16.6
`
`14.5
`
`16.7
`
`56.8
`
`30
`
`1
`
`1
`
`6
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`5
`
`1
`
`1
`
`5
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 33
`
`

`

`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
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`16
`Month of Litigation
`
`20
`
`28
`
`21
`
`32
`
`39
`
`40
`
`57
`
`83
`
`97
`
`2
`
`5
`
`7
`
`12
`
`11
`
`14
`
`6
`
`4
`
`5
`
`4
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`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
`
`63.3
`
`Patentee Win Rate
`Accused Infringer Win
`Rate
`
`36.7
`
`
`
`70
`
`60
`
`50
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`10
`
`0
`
`Percentage
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 34
`
`

`

`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
`
`Chen
`
`Chhabria
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Seeborg
`
`White
`
`23.0
`
`31.7
`
`25.2
`
`14.8
`
`20.8
`
`12.4
`
`12.2
`
`0
`
`5
`
`25
`20
`15
`10
`Months from Case Filing
`
`30
`
`35
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 35
`
`

`

`Default Judgment
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Chen
`
`Chhabria
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Seeborg
`
`White
`
`20.1
`
`23.0
`
`12.4
`
`31.7
`
`25.2
`
`14.8
`
`20.8
`
`12.2
`
`8
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 36
`
`

`

`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
`
`13
`
`15
`
`24
`Month of Litigation
`
`26
`
`31
`
`32
`
`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 37
`
`

`

`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 38
`
`

`

`Improper Venue
`
`District
`
`Kim
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`5.0
`
`5.0
`
`1
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 39
`
`

`

`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 40
`
`

`

`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
`
`Alsup
`Armstrong
`Beeler
`Chen
`Chesney
`Chhabria
`Cousins
`Davila
`Donato
`Gilliam
`Grewal
`Hamilton
`Hixson
`Illston
`Koh
`Laporte
`Orrick
`Rogers
`Seeborg
`Spero
`Tigar
`White
`0
`
`78.0
`
`100.4
`
`25.0
`
`10.2
`5.1
`
`5.0
`4.5
`6.2
`9.6
`
`17.6
`15.6
`
`38.4
`
`7.0
`6.5
`5.1
`4.5
`9.9
`6.7
`4.4
`8.0
`
`21.9
`100
`80
`60
`40
`20
`Months from Case Filing
`
`120
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 41
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Average Time to Termination
`
`Number of Cases
`
`District
`
`Alsup
`
`Armstrong
`
`Beeler
`
`Chen
`
`Chesney
`
`Chhabria
`
`Cousins
`
`Davila
`
`Donato
`
`Gilliam
`
`Grewal
`
`Hamilton
`
`Hixson
`
`Illston
`
`Koh
`
`Laporte
`
`Orrick
`
`Rogers
`
`Seeborg
`
`Spero
`
`Tigar
`
`White
`
`15.7
`
`6.5
`
`78.0
`
`10.2
`
`5.1
`
`25.0
`
`5.0
`
`4.5
`
`6.2
`
`9.6
`
`17.6
`
`15.6
`
`38.4
`
`100.4
`
`7.0
`
`6.5
`
`5.1
`
`4.5
`
`9.9
`
`6.7
`
`4.4
`
`8.0
`
`21.9
`
`100
`
`5
`
`2
`
`2
`
`4
`
`1
`
`7
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`4
`
`13
`
`7
`
`2
`
`2
`
`15
`
`2
`
`1
`
`12
`
`2
`
`2
`
`4
`
`10
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 42
`
`

`

`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
`
`22
`
`31
`24
`18
`Month of Litigation
`
`25
`
`32
`
`34
`
`48
`
`73
`
`121
`
`129
`
`102
`
`55
`
`47
`
`33
`
`3
`
`5
`
`7
`
`9
`
`12
`
`10
`
`13
`
`8
`
`6
`
`4
`
`24
`
`20
`
`16
`
`12
`
`048
`
`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
`
`PETITIONERS
`Exhibit 1020, Page 43
`
`

`

`Involuntary Dismissal
`
`Case Number
`3:17cv06883
`
`Judge
`Chhabria
`
`5:18cv03979
`
`Koh
`
`3:18cv06475
`
`Spero
`
`5:16cv03376
`
`5:16cv00925
`
`4:16cv06592
`3:17cv06112
`
`Koh
`
`Koh
`
`White
`Chhabria
`
`3:15cv00023
`
`Laporte
`
`3:18cv00358
`
`3:17cv05458
`
`Alsup
`
`Alsup
`
`4:17cv06881
`
`Rogers
`
`3:19cv01607
`
`Chhabria
`
`3:17cv05572
`
`Chen
`
`4:15cv02515
`
`Rogers
`
`3:18cv03279
`
`Chhabria
`
`3:15cv01595
`
`Orrick
`
`5:17cv04413
`
`Cousins
`
`4:18cv00274
`
`4:18cv00276
`
`3:17cv03570
`3:19cv01994
`
`3:17cv03547
`5:18cv06738
`
`White
`
`White
`
`Chen
`Illston
`
`Chen
`Koh
`
`5:17cv01721
`
`Koh
`
`Prevailing Party
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`Accused Infringer
`
`Accused Infringer
`
`Pendency
` 2.4
`
` 2.8
`
` 3.3
`
` 3.4
`
` 3.4
`
` 3.5
` 3.6
`
` 3.9
`
` 4.0
`
` 4.0
`
` 4.0
`
` 4.2
`
` 4.4
`
` 4.5
`
` 4.5
`
` 4.5
`
` 4.5
`
` 5.0
`
` 5.0
`
` 5.0
` 5.0
`
` 5.0
` 5.1
`
` 5.1
`
`Case Name
`Blackbird Tech LLC v.
`Incapsula, Inc.
`Sowinski v. California Air
`Resources Board
`Apote