James Sung et al v. Shinhan Diamond America, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00530 (CACD February 25, 2015, Order) (Fitzgerald, J.)
Friday, February 27, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1-11-cv-00908 (DED February 24, 2015, Order) (Robinson, J.)
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Google May Contributorily Infringe WiFi-Based Positioning Patent Despite Substantial Noninfringing Uses of Android OS
Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1-10-cv-11571 (MAD February 18, 2015, Order) (Zobel, J.)
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., 5-11-cv-00469 (CAND February 20, 2015, Order) (Davila, J.)
Monday, February 23, 2015
Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC, 3-13-cv-00832 (WIWD February 19, 2015, Order) (Conley, J.)
Friday, February 20, 2015
Power Survey, LLC v. Premier Utility Services, LLC et al, 2-13-cv-05670 (NJD February 18, 2015, Order) (Hochberg, J.)
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. et al, 1-14-cv-00169 (HID February 17, 2015, Order) (Kay, M.J.)
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., 3-14-cv-02061 (CASD February 12, 2015, Order) (Huff, J.)
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Petition for Inter Partes Review by Target Corporation, IPR2014-00508 (PTAB February 12, 2015, Order) (Green, APJ)
Friday, February 13, 2015
Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com, LLC, 8-13-cv-01886 (CACD February 11, 2015, Order) (Selna, J.)
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Petition for Inter Partes Review by GEA Process Engineering, Inc., IPR2014-00055 (PTAB February 11, 2015, Order) (Elluru, APJ)
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al, 8-13-cv-02240 (FLMD February 9, 2015, Order) (Covington, J.)
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
- Is patent litigation activity declining?
- Who are the key players?
- How do courts and judges compare?
- How has patent reform impacted litigation?
- What’s happening in the PTAB?
Monday, February 9, 2015
Is it true? Is Judge Koh really “tough on defendants?” We searched Docket Navigator and found that Judge Koh has ruled on 36 contested motions for summary judgment (not 17) and she granted 10 (not 3) for an overall success rate of 28%. Limiting the query to summary judgment motions that defendants are likely to file (noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability), shows that Judge Koh ruled on 24 motions and granted 7. That’s a 29% success rate.
The truth is, when it comes to summary judgment, Judge Koh is no tougher on defendants than the national average.
How does Judge Koh compare with other judges? Nationwide, judges have ruled on 3,519 such motions since 2008, of which 1,003 were granted, for a success rate of 29%, the same as Judge Koh. The truth is, when it comes to summary judgment, Judge Koh is no tougher on defendants than the national average.
Fisher’s article also takes aim at Judge Sue Robinson. “Only 3 times has a claimant ever won on SJ in front of Judge Robinson . . . out of more than 1,000 cases heard.” According to Docket Navigator data, Judge Robinson has ruled on 59 motions for summary judgment of the type a claimant might file (infringement, no invalidity or no unenforceability) and she granted 15. That’s a 25% success rate. Nationally, all judges have ruled on 1,342 such motions, of which 359 were granted, for a success rate of 27%. The truth is, claimants are about as successful on summary judgment in Judge Robinson’s courtroom as the national average.
Litigation analytics can be a powerful tool, and increasingly a necessary one. Last week, Law360 reported a warning from a panel of legal department heads to law firms “slow to adapt to the analytics-driven future: Get on board with Big Data, or get left behind.” But unreliable analytics can do more harm than no analytics. Flawed data leads to flawed analytics which can lead to flawed decisions.Flawed data leads to flawed analytics which can lead to flawed decisions.
How do you know if data you are considering is reliable? Lawyers and judges have been asking similar questions for years in Daubert proceedings, and it all starts with some basic questions:
- How was the data collected?
- Who (or what algorithm) reviewed the data, and on what basis were codes and classifications assigned?
- Is the process transparent, or does it occur in a secret, proprietary black box?
- Is the underlying data available for independent analysis?
If the analytics you are relying on could not withstand vigorous cross-examination on these questions, should it really form the basis for any decision that impacts your clients or your business?
At Docket Navigator, we collect raw data from government sources. That data is then cleaned, coded, classified, and summarized by hand - in most cases by licensed U.S. attorneys. We rarely rely on automated processes and do so only where interpretation of the data is not required and the automated processes consistently yield highly accurate results. Even then, the data is reviewed for accuracy and normalized by hand. We never rely on natural language or text recognition algorithms to interpret data. While we do not claim to be free from human error, our software engineers have developed a series of checks and safety nets to identify gaps or inconsistencies in our data. Additionally, most Docket Navigator data is first published in the Docket Report and vetted by the 11,000+ patent professionals who subscribe to Docket Navigator. The underlying data is available to Docket Navigator subscribers for independent review and analysis via our publicly available database.
Docket Navigator recently released its 2014 Year in Review, a fresh look at how the patent litigation landscape changed in 2014. The report is free and available for download here.
Rosebud LMS, Inc. d/b/a/ Rosebud PLM v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, 1-14-cv-00194 (DED February 5, 2015, Order) (Robinson, J.)
Friday, February 6, 2015
BlackBerry Limited v. Typo Products LLC et al, 3-14-cv-00023 (CAND February 4, 2015, Order) (Orrick, J.)
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Minitab, Inc. v. EngineRoom, LLC, 4-12-cv-02170 (PAMD February 3, 2015, Order) (Jones, J.)
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
LunarEye, Inc. v. Gordon Howard Associates, Inc., 9-13-cv-00091 (TXED February 2, 2015, Order) (Clark, J.)
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Failure to Raise Owner’s Manual in IPR Does Not Estop Defendant From Asserting Physical Machine as Invalidating Prior Art
Star EnviroTech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC et al, 8-12-cv-01861 (CACD January 29, 2015, Order) (Bernal, J.)
Monday, February 2, 2015
Sprint Communications Company LP v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC et al, 1-12-cv-01013 (DED January 29, 2015, Order) (Andrews, J.)