Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
vast majority
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

vast majority

159

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
159
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. PATENT LITIGATION REMEDIES: SOME STATISTICAL OBSERVATIONS PROF. PAUL JANICKE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER
  • 2. 2005 PATENT DISPOSITIONS [2,231]
  • 3. 2006 PATENT DISPOSITIONS [2,416]
  • 4. DISPOSITION MODES FOR OTHER KINDS OF CASES -- 2004
  • 5. HOW DISPOSITION MODES CHANGED OVER TIME
  • 6. NUMBER OF CASES BROUGHT
    • PEAKED AT 3,075 IN FY2004
    • DIPPED TO 2,720 IN 2005
    • 2,830 IN 2006
    • * SOURCE: ADMIN. OFFC. of U.S. COURTS ANNUAL RPTS.
  • 7. FY2006 BUSIEST PATENT DISTRICTS:
  • 8. COST OF GETTING TO JUDGMENT
    • COUNSEL FEES and RELATED COSTS PER AIPLA 2005 SURVEY:
      • $4,500,000 [NATIONWIDE MEDIAN, CASES INVOLVING >$25M]
      • REALITY: PROBABLY VALID FOR “REGULAR” CLIENTS AND HOURLY BILLING
      • REALITY: CONTINGENCY AND SMALL TROLL REPRESENTATIONS PROBABLY MUCH LOWER
  • 9.
    • DISRUPTION COSTS OF LITIGATION ARE HIGH FOR LARGE ENTITIES
    • TIME TO JUDGMENT IS IMPORTANT
      • BIG COS. FEEL PRESSURED TO SETTLE EARLY
  • 10. WHAT ARE THE JURY VERDICTS?
    • NOT SO HIGH
      • PRESS CAPTURES ONLY THE HIGH-NUMBER VERDICTS
    • IN 2005-2006, VERDICTS WERE MODEST VIS-A-VIS PRESS COVERAGE IMPRESSIONS
    • SOURCE: COURT DOCKET SHEETS
  • 11. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 12. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 13. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 14. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 15. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 16. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 17. PATENT VERDICTS – 2005-2006
  • 18. MEDIAN WINNING VERDICT
    • $ 4,167,936
    • ONLY VERDICTS ARE VIEWED HERE
    • FINAL JUDGMENT CAN BE HIGHER DUE TO INTEREST AND POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENT; OR LOWER DUE TO REMITTITUR OR JMOL
    • IF THE 2007 VERDICT IN LUCENT v. MICROSOFT STANDS ($1.5B), THE MEDIAN WILL BE NUDGED UP
  • 19. BY DISTRICTS
    • LOOKING AT SOME HIGH-VOLUME DISTRICTS FOR 2005-06:
  • 20. GROUPED BY DISTRICT
  • 21. GROUPED BY DISTRICT
  • 22. GROUPED BY DISTRICT
  • 23. GROUPED BY DISTRICT
  • 24. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?
    • TIME FROM FILING TO JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
      • FOR SETTLED CASES: SEE THE NEXT SLIDE
      • FOR ADJUDICATED CASES: SEE THE SLIDE FOLLOWING IT
    • SOURCE: FROM DISPOSITION INFORMATION CONTAINED IN FED. JUDICIAL CENTER, INTEGRATED DATABASE 2006
  • 25. Duration of Settled Cases – FY06
  • 26. Duration of Non-Settled Cases – FY06
  • 27. COMMENTS
    • MOST SETTLEMENTS COME EARLY
    • FOR NON-SETTLED CASES:
      • THE EARLY YELLOW BAR IS MAINLY DEFAULTS
      • DARK GREEN BARS ARE MAINLY SUMMARY JUDGMENTS
      • LIGHT GREEN BARS ARE TRIALS
      • BRIGHT GREEN BAR AT RIGHT IS A MIX OF LATE DISPOSITIONS
  • 28. IMPACT OF eBAY ON PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS
    • SOME
    • RATE OF DENIAL PRE-eBAY WAS 16%
    • NOW IT IS ABOUT 25%
    • SOURCES: LEXIS AND WESTLAW RESEARCH; DOCKET SHEETS
  • 29. APPELLATE POST- eBAY RULINGS ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION
  • 30. POST- eBAY DISTRICT COURT RULINGS ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION
  • 31. COURTS HAVE NOT YET FULLY ANALYZED THE CHOICES
    • RISKS OF REPETITIVE LITIGATION DROVE THE PRE-eBAY CASES
    • CHOICE TODAY REALLY IS:
      • DEALING WITH ANY FUTURE PROBLEMS BY CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
      • DEALING WITH ANY FUTURE PROBLEMS BY FOLLOW-ON LAWSUIT (WITH INJUNCTION NEXT TIME AROUND; TREBLE DAMAGES; ATTORNEY FEES)

×