In This Article: Introduction: Be the Trusted Partner Clients Need The Power of Rapid Insight CourtLink®: Be the First to Know Lex Machina®: Turn Data into Strategy ...
Experts in American insurance law recently gathered to discuss key findings from the Lex Machina® 2025 Insurance Litigation Report . Ron Porter, Esq. of Lex Machina met with Daniel Cotter, Esq., member...
In This Article Trends in Coverage Litigation Business Liability Coverage Disputes Business Interruption Claims Homeowners Policy Coverage Disputes How Legal Analytics Transforms Litigation...
Summary Why California Litigation Analytics Matter Exclusive Insights for California Lawyers The Legal Analytics Platform Rapid Value Realization for Firms Frequently Asked Questions Get...
Experienced attorneys recently met to discuss the practical implications of the Lex Machina 2025 Torts Litigation Report for legal and insurance professionals. Request your copy of the Lex Machina 2025...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
Lex Machina briefly examined the analytics for the 3,436 patent cases that terminated in 2023. Slightly less than half, or 1,700 cases, were in one of three district courts: the Western District of Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, or the District of Delaware. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the Western District of Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, and the District of Delaware have been the three most popular district courts for patent case filings since 2020.
But what about the 1,736 cases that terminated in the other federal district courts during the time period? How do the patent findings and case resolutions in these other district courts compare with those in the Western District of Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, and the District of Delaware? The following bullet points are just a sample of what’s possible with Lex Machina analytics:
Patent Findings: Invalidity findings, whether based on section 101, 102, 103 or 112, are uncommon in federal district court. For example: nationally, only 34 patent cases that terminated in 2023 had an invalidity finding based on Section 101 subject matter eligibility at the Rule 12 motion (“Alice motion”) stage. (To clarify, this does not necessarily mean that an invalidity finding based on Section 101 subject matter eligibility terminated the case, but in that particular terminated case, there was an invalidity finding based on Section 101).
(The “Other Courts” not shown in the chart above consisted of the Northern District of Texas, the District of Nevada, and the District of Massachusetts.)
Case Resolutions: In Lex Machina, a Case Resolution summarizes how the case was resolved, and it is determined when a case terminates. Case Resolutions are organized by Claimant (typically the plaintiff) and Claim Defendant to account for Declaratory Judgment cases, where the defendant brings plaintiff-like claims. Nationally, 76 percent of patent cases that terminated in 2023 were resolved by Likely Settlement; nine percent of patent cases resolved in a Claimant Win, and three percent of patent cases resolved in a Claim Defendant Win.
Lex Machina will be presenting its patent litigation report, which will contain a lot more data and insights, including the PTAB and Federal Circuit, early this year – if you are interested in receiving a copy, please reach out!