Spike in Patent Case Filings Corresponding to End of Form 18

Lex Machina’s data shows a spike in case filings on November 30, 2015, corresponding to a rule change that eliminates Form 18, the form often used to plead direct infringement claims in patent cases. On that day, a record 259 patent cases were filed. The change, recommended by the Federal Rules Advisory Committee and adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, became effective in the absence of Congressional action on December 1, 2015. Fig. 1:  November and December, 2015   Form 18 provides a simple form for pleading the facts of a direct infringement patent case.  Using Form 18 generally guaranteed plaintiffs would survive a motion to dismiss for lack of facts, despite the fact that Form 18 did not require identifying an infringed patent or even an accused product.  The abolishment of Form 18 has generally been perceived to raise the pleading standard, although the exact parameters of what now suffices are still not entirely clear. The 259 cases filed on November 30, 2015 set a new record, exceeding the old record of 200 cases filed on April 23, 2014, correlating with legislative rumors of patent reform.  There is no historic pattern which would otherwise explain this spike. Fig. 2: [...]

By |2017-10-09T20:31:05+00:00January 6th, 2016|Analytics Articles, Legal Trends|

Math4Law: Understanding Medians (and Averages)

Understanding Medians (and Averages) Many of Lex Machina’s new Analytics pages,  public reports, and services engagement reports use median figures as a way to help summarize data, showing, for example, the time-to-trial for a particular judge as a median number. This post explains what a median is, how a median relates to an average, and why we use medians at Lex Machina.  More importantly, I will try to show you why median calculations enable you to make better decisions about legal data.   Fig. 1:  Sample data First, what is a median?  Imagine a list of numbers, each representing the time-to-trial for a particular case.  If we put the list in order, and chose the middle-most number, that number would be the median.*  For example, a group of 5 cases may have time-to-trial values of 16 months, 17 months, 18 months, 19 months, and 50 months; the median is 18 months.   * If the list has an even number of times-to-trial, we define median as the arithmetic mean of the middle-most two numbers.  More on that in a moment...     Fig. 2:  The median is the middle-most value Before discussing the relative merits of medians and averages, let’s [...]

By |2017-10-18T03:37:41+00:00October 27th, 2014|Analytics Articles|

Moneyball for Lawyers: How Data and Analytics are Transforming the Practice of Law

Imagine if you could make a data-driven prediction about how opposing counsel, or a judge, or a party to litigation or a transaction, will behave. Or what results a specific legal strategy or argument will produce. Would you continue to rely exclusively on traditional legal research and reasoning to inform the advice you give clients, the documents you draft, the negotiations you conduct and the arguments you make? Or would you integrate data and analytics into your lawyering by practicing Moneyball for lawyers? Moneyball for Lawyers, Owen Byrd, The Bottom Line (April 2013)

By |2017-10-09T23:27:43+00:00August 2nd, 2013|Analytics Articles|

Mark Lemley Says Patent the ‘Solution,’ Not the ‘Problem’

Lex Machina founder and Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley says apply means-plus-function rules to software patents: "(W)ith one fell swoop – without changing the patent statute and without invalidating existing patents – we may be able to solve most of the software patent problem."  http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/10/mark-lemley-functional-claiming/

By |2017-10-09T23:28:06+00:00October 31st, 2012|Analytics Articles|