All Things Patent Blog


Leave a comment

FameBit acquired by Google


Google recently announced its acquisition of FameBit, a marketplace that connects brands, influencers, and creators with YouTube and other social networking sites to sponsor their content.

This is indeed a huge step for Google as this combination would increase the availability of branded content opportunities and bring more revenue to YouTube.

However, YouTube said that the FameBit acquisition does not mean that it will be preferred over other digital marketing agencies and services.

YouTube’s Ariel Bardin (VP, Product Management – Google Payment) said “Creators will always have the choice in how they work with brands, and there are many great companies who provide this service today. This acquisition doesn’t change that. Our hope is that FameBit’s democratized marketplace will allow creators of all sizes to directly connect with brands, as well as provide a great technology solution for companies like MCNs and agencies to find matches for their creators and brand partners.”

Financial terms of the deal have not been disclosed yet so FameBit will remain as a separate operation for now.

In a blog, FameBit founders David Kierzkowski and Agnes Kozera said, “With Google’s relationship with brands large and small, and YouTube’s partnership with creators around the globe, we hope to connect even more brands to creators, engage more audiences, and make brand marketing more creative and authentic than ever.”

FameBit has worked with world renowned brands including Marvel Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Sony, L’Oreal, Canon, Activision Blizzard, Adidas, Rovio, and Conair. The company has made deals with advertisers and creators that have resulted in more than 25,000 branded videos that have generated over 2 billion minutes of viewing time.

The trend set in video advertising has been apparent for some time now. Advertisements are fine but, they give better results when integrated into a proper video and delivered by a creator whom fans look up to. The acquisition of FameBit is clear that this is one more step in strengthening Google’s offerings and to more strongly link advertisement on their platforms to revenue.


1 Comment

USPTO Patent Issuance Report – First Half-Year of 2016


Technology growth is becoming increasingly complex and the long tail of inventions is growing day by day. Any business that comes with an innovative creation has to protect it through some legally enforceable rights, and this is where patents come into action by protecting your ideas through an extensive system that has been developed around them.

We have already crossed the halfway point of the financial year and the number of patents issued shows a steady growth.

So, do you know what’s happening in the world of patents? MaxVal has recapped all the latest US patent trends from the first half of 2016.

The total number of patents issued by the USPTO between Jan’16 to June ‘16 is 168,077

  • US is ranked highest with a massive number of 109,353 patents received so far followed by Japan 24,200, Slovakia 10,047, Germany 5,279, China 4,830, Taiwan 2,707, and France 2,202.
  • Filing for a patent with the US Government is indeed a crucial step. But, it involves a wide swath of legal formalities. The top law firms that have represented the most number of patent grants are Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, Fish & Richardson, and Cantor Colburn LLP.
  • Computer technology is no further behind this year than any other industry. Computer Technology, Digital communication and Telecommunications held on to the top three spots in the R&D areas with 35,464, 18,285 and 17,865 patents issued respectively. Top patent awardees in this arena were Qualcomm (542), Ericsson (828), Samsung Electronics (803), and LG Electronics (755).
  • When it comes to the tech industry, patents are their lifeblood. The number of patents filed by companies such as Samsung, IBM, Canon, and Google, proves how much these tech companies rely on patents. Some of the world’s well-known discoveries have been found through university research. Although the list is lengthy, here are few of the top research institutes like the University of California, Industrial Technologies Russia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University who obtained the highest number of patents during the first half of 2016.

In today’s technologically driven world, it is imperative that every business steeped in new ideas or innovations should be more IP-aware.  The only way to keep the competitors at bay is creating a shield of strategic IP-protection to provide complete certainty that your place in the market is safe.

Download the complete report here

MaxVal provides custom range of landscape research and analysis services for in-house staff or through external legal counsel. Reach us at for your landscape and competitive analysis requirements.

1 Comment

Software Patents Are Against the First Amendment?

The end may be nearing for software patents which have been highly controversial in the tech industry for some time. The verdict issued on Friday by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that they did not pronounce a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a standing in the tech world as “patent troll”.

In the concurring opinion, Judge Haldane Robert Mayer indicated that patent law must provide similar safeguards as copyright law has in-built first amendment protection called the “fair use”. Judge Mayer states that “(1) patents constricting the essential channels of online communication run afoul of the First Amendment. (2) Claims directed to the software implemented on a generic computer are categorically not eligible for a patent.”

Considering the decision made by the Supreme Court in 2014 known as “Alice” covering patentable subject matter, Judge Mayer inferred that software is not patentable. “Software lies in the antechamber of patentable invention. Because generically-implemented software is an “idea” insufficiently linked to any defining physical structure other than a standard computer, it is a precursor to technology rather than technology itself”, says Judge Mayer.

This does not mean that there will be an immediate end to software patents as this opinion was the concurring opinion. Even now the legal authorities from relevant courts are skeptical about patenting software and the chances of rejections are high.

As per Maxval’s research and USPTO data the case details are as below:

 Type  Name
Court CAFC
Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Plaintiff Attorney Brooke Ashley May Taylor
Defendant Symantec Corp.|Trend Micro Incorporated|Trend Micro, Inc. (USA)|Intel Corporation
Defendant Attorney Dean G. Dunlavey
Defendant Law Firm Latham & Watkins LLP
Product Anti-virus and Internet security products
Patent US5987610|US6073142|US6460050|US7506155
Closed date 9/30/2016
Basis of Termination Affirmed-in-Part and Reversed-in-Part

For more details, please click on the case links:


Leave a comment

$22 Million Verdict: Cellular Communications Equipment wins demonstrative victory against Apple Inc.


After finding that Apple willfully infringed on a patent, EDTX has adjured Apple to pay $22 million to Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research. CCE holds a portfolio of telecommunications patents, mostly into Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technologies. Attorneys from Caldwell Cassady & Curry, a high-stakes civil litigation firm specializing in patent infringement and co-founder disputes, represented CCE in the Eastern District of Texas case.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2014, accused Apple of selling multiple products that infringe upon the U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820. The patent is titled ”Apparatus, system, and method for designating a buffer status reporting format based on detecting pre-selected buffer conditions”. The wrangle started when CCE impeached Apple of also infringing six other of its patents. By the time the cases went to trial, only one patent was in the stand. That patent was acquired by CCE from Nokia Corp. Engineer Benoist Sebire.

Apple attempted to prove that the claims of the ‘820 patent were invalid. However, the jury rejected the assertions made, as the evidence submitted was not convincing. Since the infringement was found to be willful, the patent holder can appeal to court towards enhancing the damage up to 3 times, which can roughly be around $68 million in this particular litigation.

According to USPTO data and MaxVal’s own research, Apple has not yet confirmed whether it will appeal the decision.

Maxval’s link of the case



Case Number 6:14-cv-00251
Court Texas Eastern District Court
Filed date 04/07/14
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell
Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
Plaintiff Attorney Jeffrey Ray Bragalone
Plaintiff Law Firm Bragalone Conroy PC
Counter Claimant Apple Inc.
Defendant Apple Inc. | AT&T Inc. | AT&T Mobility LLC|Verizon Communications, Inc.| Cellco Partnership 
doing business as Verizon Wireless|Sprint Corporation |Sprint Corporation |Sprint Solutions, Inc.| Sprint Spectrum L.P.| Boost Mobile, LLC|T-Mobile USA, Inc.| T-Mobile US, Inc.
Counter Defendant Cellular Communications Equipment LLC
Defendant Attorney Douglas E Lumish
Defendant Law Firm Latham & Watkins LLP 
Product Apple mobile devices and services for mobile device communications
Patent US6377804|US6819923|US7215962|US7941174|US8055820|US6810019
Closed date Yet to be closed
Basis of Termination Judgment on the Merits – Defendant
Outcome of District court judgment Defendant
Damages amount $ $22,118,216

Leave a comment

MaxVal Launches SymphonyIAM – an Innovative Intellectual Asset Management Platform

symphonyiam-bannerMaxVal, a leading IP management solution provider is pleased to announce the public launch of SymphonyIAM — its new cloud-based intellectual asset management platform.

SymphonyIAM is the complete intellectual asset management platform that enables IP counsel and IP managers to mitigate risk and manage better by providing visibility, insight and control over their intellectual assets.

SymphonyIAM integrates all aspects of intellectual asset management into one platform with capabilities including invention management, docketing, portfolio management, workflow management, annuity management, expense forecasting, analytics, reporting and more.  A key component of SymphonyIAM is MaxVal’s newly developed GFWTM global prosecution data sync technology that enables unified data collection from both public and private patent data sources including prosecution data from the U.S. as well as all major foreign patent offices. Steven Gong, patent attorney and product director for SymphonyIAM says “SymphonyIAM’s ability to build a strong data foundation through unprecedented access to U.S. and foreign patent data is a game changer for the industry, because maintaining correct, current, complete IP data is critical to any IP department.”

MaxVal CEO, D. Bommi Bommannan, says “SymphonyIAM received overwhelmingly positive response from industry thought leaders during the private launch earlier this year. Based on the positive feedback and comments from IP counsel and IP managers of some of the most innovative Internet, high-tech, biomedical and pharmaceutical companies, we are now pleased to announce the public launch of SymphonyIAM.  With SymphonyIAM, users will, a) know what assets they have, b) have the tools they need to analyze and manage those assets throughout the asset lifecycle and c) be able to generate insightful reports for key stakeholders. SymphonyIAM will reduce risk and make IP operations more efficient.”

For more information about SymphonyIAM, please visit or email

Leave a comment

False Testimony Leads to Triple Damages Award by EDTX against Samsung


Samsung Electronics was punished with a $21 million enhanced damages award after finding egregious willful infringement of patents held by Imperium IP Holdings of the Cayman Islands.

Judge Mazzant cited the US Supreme Court’s decision this June in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics while making his determination to triple the damages. At Halo, the majority opinion held that the two-step Seagate test is inconsistent with § 284, which has no explicit limit or condition on when enhanced damages are appropriate. Imperium IP Holdings v. Samsung Electronics in E.D. Tex. is the first case to apply with Halo standard for awarding enhanced damages.

The original complaint was filed on June 2014 by Imperium IP seeking damages from Samsung for infringing the patents. On February 2016, the jury verdict delivered that Samsung had willfully infringed upon the following  patents-in-suit:

1 – U.S. Patent No. 7092029 titled Strobe Lighting System for Digital Images.

2 – U.S. Patent No. 6271884, titled Image Flicker Reduction with Fluorescent Lighting.

An initial complaint of Imperium IP against Samsung seeking relief targeted Samsung products which allegedly infringed Imperium’s patents ‘029 and ‘884.

In this case, the court decided to award enhanced damages to Samsung, because of egregious behavior on the part of Samsung,  including attempts to copy the technology and  moreover, false testimony given by Samsung. Samsung’s representatives testified under oath that they only became aware of Imperium IP’s patents in June 2014, the first time the infringement action was brought to court. However, this was proved incorrect by depositions and other discovery during trial.  Previously, Samsung had also made an attempt to purchase the patents-in-suit from Imperium, concealing its identity through a patent broker. The court thus found that Samsung was aware of Imperium’s patents since at least April 2011 instead of June 2014.

While deciding to award enhanced damages, the court was guided by the non-exclusive factors developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit decided in 1992. Likewise, Samsung has also made an attempt in defense to declare that it wasn’t liable for infringing on imaging sensors which it purchased from Tokyo-based Sony Corporation. During September 2015, a damages expert for Imperium deposed that the company wasn’t targeting sensors which Samsung purchased from Sony, but an infringement report on the same day which used a citation only listing Sony sensors.

Court decided that Samsung’s decision not to declare the Sony license defense until November 2015, post the deadline to file for summary judgement and months after receiving the Sony license agreement in April 2015, was evidence that Samsung vigorously intended to not assert the Sony license.

According to USPTO data  and MaxVal’s own research, Imperium accused Samsung in 3 PTAB cases out of which 1 wasn’t instituted.


Case Number Petition document Institution document Status
IPR2015-01231 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 1-6, 14, and 17-19 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,271,884. The petition was denied by order due to all challenged claims of the 884 patent  and adding further to the case, that no inter partes review was instituted. Not-instituted
IPR2015-01232 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Pat. No. 7,092,029 (“the ’029 Patent”), issued to
ESS Technology, Inc. (“ESS”).
Petitioner demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 of the ’029 patent. Consequently, we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Shimada. ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1, 6, 7, 14, and 16 of the ’029 patent. Instituted
IPR2015-01233 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioners) hereby petition for inter partes review of claims 1 and 10 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,290. Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail at trial in showing the unpatentability of claims 1 and 10 of the ’290 patent on certain of the grounds asserted in the Petition.
ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1 and 10 of the ’290 patent.


Leave a comment

Tips from Experts: For Better IDS Management


Tips from Experts - For Better IDS Management

Eliminate Unnecessary Cost:

1. Review the materiality to the patentability of existing claims: It is important to review the reference for materiality to the patentability of existing claims by the attorneys/applicant before the submission. Also, perform a good prior-art or pre-filing search to identify all the relevant references and cite them, which can avoid RCE fee at the notice of allowance stage.

2. File the IDS within the first three months: An IDS can be filed at no extra cost within 3 months from the filing date of a national/original application (other than a continued prosecution application) or before the receipt of the first OA. This also helps examiner to review the application in relevance to the IDS filed.

3. Check the publication/priority date of the references against the priority date of the application: In some cases, the applicant/attorneys may fail to check on the publication date of the references against the priority date of the application which leads to unnecessary attorney review time and cost. To avoid such situation, it is advised to check the publication/priority date of the reference against the earliest filing date of the application.

4. Avoid filing foreign counterparts as references: Sometimes, the applicant/attorneys would want to be on a safer side with all the references and file foreign counterparts of the corresponding US as a reference. It is recommended to avoid such practice of filing foreign counterparts as references of the same family as it is an unnecessary cost/effort.

5. Cite references from other jurisdictions: It is recommended to file Prior arts from other jurisdictions within 3 months (after you became aware of it) with USPTO and there is no fee involved if it is filed within three All the more, it is advisable to cite it within a month to avoid any PTA delays.

Avoid Redundant Effort:

6. References for continuity applications: By default, the examiner will consider information which has been considered by the Office in a parent application when examining a,

  • continuation application filed under 37 CFR 1.53
  • divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53 or
  • continuation-in-part application filed under 37 CFR 1.53

You may need to cite them again only if you/your attorney need them to be displayed on the face of the patent.

7. Need to check for any new reference on a frequent basis (monthly review) to avoid RCE at the allowance stage: In general, if the IDSes are filed after the issue fee is paid; the examiner will consider it only if RCE is filed. This not only implicates extra fee, but also procrastinates the prosecution.

Keep it Clean and Relevant:

8. It is important to check and remove cumulative publications: It is advisable to remove cumulative (corresponding publication in a different jurisdiction) publications of already cited art especially while reviewing the case during allowance (Issue Fee Review – Checklist which shall be explained in the next post). This process of checking and removing cumulative references may result in clean IDS and can avoid RCE at the NOA stage.

9. The significance of preparing a matrix of references cited/submitted in related/co-pending applications: The duty of disclosure relates to submitting to the PTO all information known to the applicant, that an examiner would consider important while examining the given application. Especially the references cited in all related (genealogical and/or subject matter) applications. Also, preparing a reference matrix for a family of applications (even in Excel) could help in not missing any reference.

Accelerate the Examination:

10. The Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) pilot program: It is a part of the USPTO’s on-going efforts towards compact prosecution and pendency reduction. The advantage of the USPTO’s QPIDS pilot program is to file IDS without an RCE post making the issue fee payment. This expedites the examination process and also the RCE fee gets refunded if the examiner notices that the references are not convincing enough for reopening prosecution.

MaxVal offers Max-IDS, a stand-alone software product, an easy to use, integrated, and customizable environment for legal operations to collaboratively manage patent references and generate IDS with a few clicks. Clients can also avail MaxVal’s migration and data upkeep services.

Leave a comment

Selecting the Right Search Provider: Distinguishing the Experts from the Novices

Selecting the right search provider

The prior art search challenge – 2

When going through the process of finding a high quality prior art search provider, you typically start by looking for a provider with experienced searchers that possess technical and academic credentials in the technologies that you are prosecuting or litigating. You look for technical expertise, access to an array of databases, good quality control processes, etc. (Please refer to our previous article on how to select the right prior art search professional here.)

What other attributes make a great search provider?

An important factor that is often overlooked and one which can be argued to be the single most important ingredient, is a search team with a deep understanding of the patents and technical publications; not from a legal standpoint, but from a standpoint of how topics and concepts are typically described in a patent or technical document. Specifically, how documents typically describe an invention, where the relevant concepts are likely to be located within and distributed throughout a document.

When selecting a search team to support your prosecution and litigation research, you need to look not only for a search team with expertise in various search tools and methods, but more importantly you need to look for prior art document experts.

Why is document expertise so critical?

Most searchers use commercial search tools that provide the searcher with a means for constructing sophisticated Boolean search queries including proximity operators. These skills, if used in combination with the knowledge about document construction, can serve as a powerful means of retrieving highly relevant prior art quickly. A searcher with this level of expertise can construct pinpoint queries capable of matching phrases within documents that discuss the salient point of an invention. However, in the hands of a novice search team these tools behave like any keyword search engine; returning sporadic and questionable results based primarily on word count matches; whereas an expert will encapsulate the inventive concepts form disclosure in their strategy due to their understanding of how these concepts are laid out in the underlying documents being searched. While semantic search tools can help with this, even the best semantic algorithms available don’t offer the accuracy required to detect the nuances important to patentability, invalidity, and freedom to operate searches.

In the next blog we will look at an example of how an expert searcher would construct a query, paying attention to their assumptions of how the inventive concepts are likely to be grouped within the documents they are searching, how these assumptions vary based on the literature type, as well as a command of synonyms for the technology domain in question.


Prior art search skills can be effectively assessed by testing a candidate firm through search trials, a review of their search strategies, as well as the prior art results their strategies produce. Additionally, a phone interview or conference call where the searcher walks you through the construction of their strategy can be helpful in assessing their competency. There is no single correct method of searching prior art, so the goal is to assess whether the methods are logically sound and that the searchers not only have command of the search tools but also a thorough working knowledge around the architecture of the documents they are searching.

How do I select the right prior-art search professional_banner

Leave a comment

How do I select the right prior-art search professional?


Key questions to ask while hiring a professional/firm to perform prior-art searches.

A patentability search and analysis are carried out to ensure that an invention would meet the novelty and non-obviousness requirements for obtaining a patent. However, such search and analysis would not be effective unless claimable subject matter is identified correctly. A patent agent or attorney needs to thereafter determine the breadth of the claimable matter by examining the disclosure along with the prior art identified in the search in order to complete the analysis.

A patent cannot claim something that already exists or is apparent on combining existing knowledge. Prior art refers to any technical information that exists prior to the effective date of a patent application that discloses the same or similar solution to the problem addressed by the invention.

Identifying relevant art that predates the critical date is a big challenge. It is important to choose a reliable prior-art search professional or firm, so that the full potential of an invention may be realized. In today’s electronic-age, anyone with Internet access and basic technical knowledge could, in principle, conduct prior-art searches. However, deep knowledge of the technical domain as well as patent law is required to analyze an invention satisfactorily for determining patentability. Appropriate usage of search tools and technical expertise are required if results are to be obtained within reasonable cost and acceptable timelines. There are a number of ways to locate a competent prior-art search professional or firm: Internet search, online directories, the patent office websites, etc.

Here are some of the key questions that should be asked by an inventor or applicant while hiring a vendor to perform prior-art searches.

Key questions to ask when hiring a prior-art search professional or firm

Indicators to predict patent litigation outcomes

1 Comment

5 Indicators to Predict Patent Litigation Outcomes

Indicators to predict patent litigation outcomes

If you are involved in any patent litigation, whether you are the plaintiff or defendant, you naturally want to know the potential outcome of your case. At this stage, it would be helpful to be able to forecast the outcome of the litigation.

Applying Data Analytics to Predict Litigation Outcomes

In the last 5 years, Litigation Analytics has gained popularity as a way for law firms and corporations to forecast the outcome of a case.

These indicators can help answer such questions:

For a case of this kind,

  • What were the previous outcomes in this domain?
  • What is the typical time-to-closure?
  • What is the success rate with a particular district court?
  • What are the trends on damages awarded?

Of course, there are many sophisticated algorithms to compute the outcome of an infringement case, but there are also other handy ways as illustrated below, to predict the outcome of the case even at the very early stages.

There is no doubt the outcome of a patent infringement case involves many other external factors like change in the policy, law, financial flexibility, ability to deal with the business disruption of the parties involved, etc. But some indicators and historic data will help you predict the likelihood of the case.

Key Indicators

In the uncertain world of litigation, metrics like time-to-closure, outcome by courts/judges, damages awarded and success rate by the traits of an opponent, for instance, can be deemed as key indicators. Using these data cues, one can very well connect the dots while evaluating the merit of a case without much complication.

For illustrative purposes, let us take the cases affiliated with the pharma industry*.

  • To analyze time-to-closure we reviewed cases filed in 2015
  • To analyze judgments by industry as well as by courts/judges we reviewed cases closed in 2015
  • To study the damages awarded by industry and success rates with regard to the nature of an opponent we reviewed cases closed from 2011 to 2015.

1. Time-to-closure

Not all district courts are patent owner–friendly. In jurisdictions such as Eastern Virginia, Delaware, or Eastern Texas a typical lawsuit goes to the trial stage and gets closed within a year, when compared to the average 3+ years from filing date to time-to-trial and then to closure with other district courts. Generally, these delays may also impact other factors like the cost to run the case, market value of the patent litigated, etc.


In a panoramic view of patent litigations in 2015, we see the following statistics:

Over 550 Pharma cases were filed across various US district courts.

❏  The average time-to-closure was approximately 90 days.

❏  However, some power players took more than 325 days to contend with their opponents, for example CTE Global, Inc. and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

❏  About 70% of these cases were filed only in the district courts of Delaware and New Jersey.

2. Judgment by District Courts (or Judges)

Some US district courts have been showing a repeated pattern of outcomes in favor of either plaintiffs or defendants. Now look at the cases that closed with a judgment in 2015.

Charts to be handdrawn

Historically, the district courts of DE, Eastern VA, NJ, and Eastern TX are said to have been the favorite destinations to file cases due to their plaintiff-friendliness. However, for pharma cases given judgments in 2015, in these courts neither plaintiffs nor defendants were favored, while at the same time those in NJ slightly favored plaintiffs. This analysis can also be applied to judges and their rulings.

3. Outcomes Within the Industry

Many recent studies have revealed the outcome trends by industry. Outcomes of patent litigation can vary between industries. It is helpful to look at the outcomes within your specific field. Below are the outcomes for the pharma-related suits filed in 2015:

Charts to be handdrawn

More than 52% of pharma-related suits filed in 2015 were concluded as likely settlement and about 17% as voluntary dismissals.

4. Damages Awarded

The bio/pharma industry has been awarded the highest damages for patent litigations. Since 2011, the published value of awarded damages is more than $2.14B in the bio/pharma industry alone – Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. and SyntrixBiosystems, Inc. were among those who were apportioned the most expensive settlements in 2012 and 2013.

Charts to be handdrawn

In 2015, there were only two cases awarded damages in the pharma field in favor of plaintiffs – Astrazeneca AB and Monsanto. Astrazeneca, who had been combating this case since 2001 against Apotex Corporation, secured a large compensation of around $104.3M.

5. Success Rates by Traits of Opponents

NPE-vs-PEEvery year the number of litigations filed by NPEs, keep increasing. NPEs accounted for about 69% of the total cases that were filed in 2015 irrespective of industry type.

According to a recent study**, while the practicing entities had a lower median time-to-trial and a 10% higher success rate than NPEs for the last 10 years, in contrast, the median damages awarded for NPEs from 2011 to 2015 were 3 times greater than that for PEs.

While analytics becomes more and more handy and prescriptive, law firms and organizations have already started incorporating them as an essential component with their litigation strategies. By leveraging the analytical power of litigation tools like MaxVal’s Litigation Databank (or the API), you can forecast, strategize, and benchmark yourself against others.

*MaxVal’s Litigation Databank
** PWC: 2016 Patent Litigation Study

For the methodology used in this blog and to order any such detailed custom reports, contact us at