Have you ever wished to know exactly how a judge, or opposing party, or even your own client has behaved in prior cases like yours? Over the past year, the company has engaged in an effort to expand its technology into all areas of federal practice, and on June 20, it announced its expansion into commercial litigation. Litigation is one of those arenas that is increasingly proving ripe for analytics technology, and Lex Machina CEO Josh Becker in a statement billed the foray into commercial litigation as its “biggest most ambitious endeavor yet.” Lex Machina – a LexisNexis company – has expanded its Legal Analytics platform into commercial law in efforts to expand the tool beyond patent, trademark, copyright, securities, and antitrust law and to cover every federal practice area. The market is a potentially lucrative one for the platform as commercial litigation generates more than $6 billion in billings by law firms in the US annually. “This is our moment to move outside specialty practices into the larger area of the law,” Byrd said in a webinar that demonstrated the module. Lex Machina began as a 2006 Stanford University intellectual property clearinghouse, and grew as a company to include securities and antitrust cases. In a significant expansion of its current analytics offering, Lex Machina, which was acquired by LexisNexis in November 2015, today announced that its legal analytics platform now covers commercial litigation. Commercial litigators using the platform will be able to make data-driven decisions based on detailed information about more than 62,000 commercial cases pending since 2009. Since its acquisition in November 2015 by LexisNexis, Lex Machina has been using LexisNexis’s collection of federal and state docket data to expand its analytics platform beyond its original area of intellectual property into other practice areas, adding securities last July and antitrust in November. It plans eventually to cover every federal practice area. Owen Byrd, the Chief Evangelist at Lex Machina is really excited about the latest module of legal analytics. Byrd provided me with a preview of the new commercial litigation product. While Byrd is proud of all of the Lex Machina modules, he sees the commercial product as providing lawyers with a truly unique set of insights. Intellectual property boutiques Fish & Richardson; Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner; and Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox maintain dominant positions in America Invents Act litigation, but global Am Law 50 firms continue making inroads at the PTAB. That’s one of the takeaways from Lex Machina’s annual review of AIA litigation at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2017 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Report by legal data analytics firm Lex Machina was released on the heels of the high court’s Monday decision to consider if AIA reviews violate the U.S. Constitution. The report provides a snapshot of the firms and companies that would feel the greatest impact if the justices were to eliminate AIA reviews. Lex Machina’s ranking of the top petitioners will not surprise many. Predictably, it reads like a who’s who of the tech world. Apple is far ahead with 370 reviews, followed by Samsung Electronics, Google, Microsoft and LG Electronics. Despite its lead of over 100, the iPhone maker does seem to be losing some of its zeal for the PTAB, having filed just 24 so far this year while its rivals Google and Microsoft don’t even make it into the top 10. Only 4 percent of all PTAB petitions for review proceedings end with a final written decision in which all claims are upheld as patentable. A few other data-based perspectives exist with a narrower focus on petitions that have lead to final written decisions issued from PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs). Of the 1,556 petitions for patent review proceedings at the PTAB that have reached final written decisions, only 16 percent of those final written decisions left all claims upheld. For hundreds of years, litigators have served their clients by applying facts to law using legal reasoning. To identify relevant law—statutes, cases, rules—to apply to the facts of a case, lawyers conduct legal research. Performing accurate legal research remains a core skill of successful lawyering. To most people, the term “predictive justice” refers to a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick titled The Minority Report in which precogs predict future crimes. But it also covers a complex reality. In recent days, we’ve been reporting on a series of possible ethical issues concerning administrative patent judges (APJs) serving at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Of particular interest to patent owners facing challenges at PTAB will be the Counsel tab, which is found in the top margin after logging into Lex Machina. Because so many drug companies are either headquartered or incorporated in Delaware and New Jersey, those two states have been home to the lion’s share of filings in cases that often have hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in battles between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers. On Thursday, April 27th, legal data analytics firm Lex Machina released a Hatch-Waxman/ANDA litigation report detailing trends and key findings from pharmaceutical cases filed in U.S. district courts between January 1st, 2009, and March 31st, 2017. More than eight years worth of data shows that patent infringement case filings in response to ANDAs filed with the FDA declined in 2016 for the first time in three years. Meanwhile, technology continues its march, transforming the antiquated world of law courts. In the US, Lex Machina, a start-up acquired by Lexis Nexis in 2015, crunches data about court rulings to analyse types of cases filed and examine past successes, replacing work that is normally done by newly qualified lawyers. The practice of law is going to look very different 15 years from now. The most routine legal work traditionally performed by human lawyers will likely be carried out by artificial intelligence (AI). In fact, some law firms have already employed robots to perform legal services and private companies are rapidly developing new artificial intelligence and data analytics tools for lawyers. I would like to introduce you to three examples. A group of lawyers has been coveted in recent years by the most prestigious law firms. They are supposed to predict results more accurately than Gary Born, create more persuasive stories than Stanimir Alexandrov and even issue better awards than Gabrielle Kauffman-Kohler. Their names are Watson, Ross, Lex Machina and Compas – they are Machine Learning Systems (“MLS) with natural language capability and the capacity to review thousands of decisions in merely seconds. The Fordham Law Review recently published an article on the growing shift within legal departments and courts to unbundle cases into discrete tasks to better control legal spending. Sophisticated corporate leaders in this area set expectations in-house and with outside counsel on budget, efficiency and accountability. They also leverage process, technology and data to make informed decisions on tasks, strategy and spending. On April 12th, legal data analytics firm Lex Machina released a litigation update report for the first quarter of 2017 which highlights trends in intellectual property suits being filed in U.S. district courts. One of the key findings is that only 938 patent infringement actions were filed in district courts during the recent quarter, a total which is the lowest for a single quarter since the third quarter of 2011 when only 921 such cases were filed. The number of patent suits over generic drugs filed in 2016 dropped by 32.5 percent over the previous year, according to a report released on Thursday by Lex Machina, a decline that an attorney says may be due to the rise of inter partes reviews and other factors. The Pink Sheet As for why there was a decline in 2016, Brian Howard, Lex Machina’s associate general counsel and legal data scientist, said part of the fall-off was due to fewer cases being filed in the Southern District of New York, the third largest district for ANDA cases. It had a peak of 41 cases in 2011 and only one case in the last five quarters. An AI tool may be able to detect new matter or a new client opportunity and prompt the partner to initiate a business development activity. It may also recommend which barristers are best suited to a specific case using a research tool which knows the lawyers’ backgrounds and recent case history, as well as the details of the current matter. For years, artificial intelligence has been automating tasks—like combing through mountains of legal documents and highlighting keywords—that were once rites of passage for junior attorneys. The bots may soon function as quasi-employees. Is the so-called “patent litigation” explosion real? The beauty of this question is that it’s 100% answerable through verifiable facts. So let’s look at the facts: According to Lex Machina, a respected legal analytics firm, there were 4,537 patent infringement suits filed in 2016, which represents a 22% decline from the 5,819 cases filed in 2015. But it also represents a 26% drop in patent suits filed since 2013, when an all-time high of 6,114 cases were filed. On paper, Kraft v. TC Heartland is not a very exciting case. It’s a lawsuit involving artificial sweeteners and the plastic containers they come in. It’s not the kind of case one would expect to make it all the way to the US Supreme Court and have sweeping implications for the future of the US technology industry. LexisNexis has announced the first five participants in its new Silicon Valley legal tech accelerator programme created to give startups a leg up in the legal tech industry and transform the business of law. When legal research giant LexisNexis launched its tech startup accelerator last December, the company aimed to bring its resources and analytics expertise to young companies in the legal technology space. This past Friday, the accelerator announced its selection of its first five program participants. The accelerator, which was announced last December, examined over 40 applications to the mentoring and development scheme, which will lead the lucky five legal tech companies through a 12 week period of training and education designed to further their business and technology goals. Mark Zuckerberg, the chairman, chief executive officer, and co-founder of Facebook, is known for setting ambitious New Year’s resolutions. For example, in 2010, Zuckerberg taught himself Mandarin. In 2015, he pledged to read one new book every other week. For 2016, however, Zuckerberg declared perhaps his most ambitious resolution yet: building a voice-controlled artificial intelligence (AI) assistant to run his home. Companies as varied as tech giants, retailers, banks and generic-pharmaceutical companies have pressed the high court to rein in where suits can be filed, with many arguing that the large concentration of cases in the Eastern District of Texas puts accused infringers at a disadvantage. The TC Heartland dispute centers on the federal law covering patent venue — known as Section 1400(b) — which holds that patent suits may be filed where the defendant “resides” or “has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Texas hedge fund manager Kyle Bass lost another patent challenge this week, as a panel at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected his attempt to invalidate Biogen’s patent on Tecfidera, a treatment for multiple sclerosis. Overall Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs – actually a collection of several special-purpose investment funds — has won 9 out of 33 challenges so far for a 27% success rate, according to Lex Machina, which tracks patent litigation. Businesses, particularly those in the tech sector, are watching closely a case to be argued in the Supreme Court next week challenging a system that has led to a concentration of patent cases in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as eastern Texas, where the number of new patent-infringement cases has soared from a few hundred annually a decade ago to a peak of more than 2,500 in 2015, by far the highest total for any district, according to data from Lex Machina. It was more than a decade ago that The New York Times exposed an anomaly that lawyers had been whispering about for some time. The sleepy, rural East Texas town of Marshall, Texas—“the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World and home to the annual Fire Ant Festival”—had somehow become the nation’s hottest venue for filing high-tech patent suits. Lex Machina is one of the most well known of the new breed of legal tech companies making use of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to help lawyers. The fact that it is part of legal publishing giant, LexisNexis, has no doubt helped in this regard. But, what does Lex Machina actually do and how did it get to where it is today? [Labor economists] assumed that professionals, like lawyers, were safe because their work was wrapped in language. But advances in artificial intelligence overturned that assumption. Technology unlocked the routine task of sifting through documents, looking for relevant passages. So major law firms, sensing the long-term risk, are undertaking initiatives to understand the emerging technology and adapt and exploit it. For years, artificial intelligence has been automating tasks—like combing through mountains of legal documents and highlighting keywords—that were once rites of passage for junior attorneys. Beyond helping prepare cases, AI could also predict how they’ll hold up in court. Lex Machina, a company owned by LexisNexis, offers what it calls “moneyball lawyering.” Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the top firm for shareholders, representing investors and plaintiffs in 745 cases filed between 2009 and 2016, according to an analysis of federal court data published in Lex Machina’s Securities Litigation Report 2017. On the defense side, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP has established a firm lead by guiding 349 companies in securities litigation over the same period. Only seven months after launching the Securities analytics module, Lex Machina has published their first Securities Litigation Year in Review Report. The report examines key trends in securities litigation using data from 2009 through 2016. It also identifies the top plaintiffs, defendants their law firms and outcomes including damages. On Thursday, March 2nd, legal data analytics firm Lex Machina released its fourth annual Patent Litigation Year in Review report which provides some intriguing findings on the landscape of patent cases in the United States over the past 12 months. The national law firms that handled the most patent cases in 2016 includes several big names that were also among the busiest in 2015, according to a new report by Lex Machina, which also tallied the number of patents that courts have invalidated under Alice. The legal analytics company’s 2016 patent litigation report found that Fish & Richardson PC represented defendants in 160 patent cases last year, more than double the next-busiest firm. Russ August & Kabat handled more cases for patent plaintiffs than any other last year with 110, three dozen more than its closest competitor. The headline numbers have been known for a couple of months thanks to early reports from the likes of Unified Patents and RPX; and Lex Machina confirms that new patent disputes fell dramatically last year with the firm putting the total at 4,537 cases filed – a drop of 22% year-on-year. However, Lex Machina’s analysis goes far deeper than those headline stats and it’s in the later stages of the report that some particularly interesting findings jump out. Is it a dip or just a blip? Patent case filings in U.S. district courts dropped 22 percent to 4,537 in 2016, analytics shop Lex Machina reported Thursday in its annual patent litigation review. While that decline sounds steep, analysts think it was exaggerated by a December 2015 change to federal pleading requirements that caused patent owners to rush hundreds of cases into court in late 2015 to beat the deadline. “It sort of cheated the first two months of 2015,” is how Brian Howard, Lex Machina’s director of analytics services, put it. The report analyses filing trends, key decisions and timing of key events, settlement rates, damages and other key metrics. The report highlights top districts by case filings, top plaintiffs and defendants and law firms representing them. While patent infringement filings are down both nationally and in Texas according to a recent report, there’s still no question who the King of America’s patent docket is: U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of Marshall. Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company and creator of the award-winning Legal Analytics® platform, today released findings from its fourth annual Patent Litigation Year in Review report. The report examines key 2016 patent litigation trends and provides insights gleaned from quantitative data about federal district court cases, PTAB trials and ITC investigations. Lex Machina executives will review the findings in a live webcast today. In January, legal analytics firm Lex Machina released a copyright litigation report for 2016 which delivers findings on notable trends in U.S. copyright cases. Venue statistics in the Lex Machina report show that copyright cases are filed in districts which include cities which are centers of commerce for the industries which file the most copyright suits. I have been thinking of this blog post by Jean P. O’Grady from last September: “Lex Machina Launches New ‘Easy Button’ Analytics Apps to Compare Judges, Courts and Law Firms”. To my knowledge Lex Machina doesn’t literally call their system improvements an “easy button”, but the site developments and O’Grady’s description are symptomatic of this moment in how we discuss legal research: there is a desire to make legal research easier, and as technology improves this is becoming a reality. For this edition of #LegalTechLives I spoke with Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina and leader in legal innovation. Becker has a wide range of experience that includes being a Co-Founder of Dice.com and head of corporate development at Agile Software, that was bought by Oracle. Prawfs Blawg The analogy between self-driving cars and legal services innovation is not perfect, but it is instructive. Like predictions about the coming ubiquity of self-driving cars, predictions about the likely transformation of professional services are drawn from existing data and technology, not a speculative forecast about future capabilities. Over the last year, Lex Machina has rolled out a series of legal analytics apps designed to deliver answers for specific use cases. In September, I wrote about two of them, the Courts & Judges Comparator and the Law Firms Comparator. Others are Early Case Assessor, Motion Kickstarter and Patent Portfolio. Today’s announcement adds two more apps to this series. Today Lex Machina is releasing two important new apps: The Damages Explorer and the Parties Comparator which provide instant insights to litigators. Attorneys can use both apps to quickly model different strategic approaches – using information from the Lex Machina database that previously would have taken weeks to compile using a team of researchers. Just like a driver who doesn’t know exactly where he’s taking his riders, a lawyer who isn’t totally sure what a client wants is likely to end up with a disgruntled client. Smart lawyers will deliver services that capitalize on both the tools that consumers already have at their disposal or consumers’ willingness to actively participate in solving their legal problem. More than that, however, lawyers need to know what the client wants and how to get them there before the process starts. Gartner, the technology research firm, maps “hype cycles” as a tool to track the life cycle of new technology. This hype cycle can be applied beyond technology to innovative business process, like practice management tools or lead generation for law firm marketers. Or perhaps we could even generously place alternative fee arrangements as an “innovation” as we track adoption and evolution of the practice. Apple Inc., known worldwide for its iPhones, holds another, less favorable distinction: The company ranks as one of the most popular targets for patent infringement plaintiffs nationwide and particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, where more of these cases have been filed than in any other federal district, and where courts, lawyers and even former judges have big stakes in the litigation. As we turn the page onward to 2017, it’s a good time to take another look at some of the major trends shaping the IP and technology landscape in the United States and abroad. From increasing competition with an Asian powerhouse to the continuation of a misleading narrative about patent system abuses, the past year leaves us with many important narratives to consider for the year ahead. Steven Bauer, a patent lawyer at Proskauer Rose LLP, said that in a recent pitch to a company looking for the best place to file a patent-infringement lawsuit, he compared differences in speed and case outcomes from several courts. In terms of litigation, not only are computers demonstrating pretty good batting averages in predicting case outcomes (the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights were recently predicted at 79 per cent accuracy using AI) but they are also pretty good at predicting your personal batting average. What were 2016’s most important developments in legal technology? Every year since 2013, I’ve posted my picks of the year’s top developments in legal tech. As another year wraps up, it’s time to look back at 2016. It’s like “Moneyball” for judges. Lawyers looking for an edge in court are increasingly turning to hard data to predict how judges might rule, in some cases long before the judges put pen to paper. Defendants looking to transfer a case away from U.S. District Judge Gregory Sleet in Delaware can see on Lex Machina that he has granted such requests 62% of the time in cases filed since 2000, compared with the 53% national average. LexisNexis is the latest organization to take on a technology accelerator, offering startups access to its data, tools and professional networks. Heading the effort is LexisNexis’ Lex Machina division, the Silicon Valley-based legal analytics software providers acquired by LexisNexis late last year. Lex Machina hosts the newly launched accelerator in its Menlo Park, California, offices, and CEO Josh Becker will head the program. In November 2015, LexisNexis acquired Silicon Valley–based Lex Machina, which currently uses artificial intelligence for intellectual property litigation purposes. Brian Howard, a legal data scientist at Lex Machina, provided some interesting insight. According to Howard, “AI has transformed the legal field in a variety of ways, from predictive document coding systems for large document productions during discovery, to the kind of sophisticated NLP used by Lex Machina to provide analytics for district court litigation.” Law360 takes a look at six of the biggest legal tech-related news developments over the past three weeks, including LexisNexis’ launch of a new legal technology accelerator, Dentons’ Nextlaw Lab’s investment in a Canadian AI contract review company, and the unveiling of Jackson Lewis’ new data analytics group. Aiming to help give legal tech startups a leg up, LexisNexis today announced the launch of a legal tech accelerator. It will be located in the Menlo Park, Calif., offices of its legal analytics unit, Lex Machina, and will be led by Lex Machina’s CEO Josh Becker. This morning, LexisNexis announced “the launch of a new legal tech accelerator in Silicon Valley designed to give startups a leg-up in the rapidly expanding legal tech industry.” The LexisNexis Legal Tech Accelerator program will be based in the Menlo Park offices of Lex Machina and will be led by its CEO, Josh Becker, with support from LexisNexis Chief Technology Officer Jeff Reihl; Chief Product Officer Jamie Buckley; Vice President of U.S .Product Management Jeff Pfeifer; and Lex Machina Chief Evangelist Owen Byrd, the press release said. Terms such as big data and artificial intelligence are buzzwords for senior managers in business, but they have been more or less ignored in legal circles. Now law firms are under pressure from clients to use the latest technology to cut costs and improve efficiency. California-based Lex Machina, which specializes in litigation research, counts Nike and Microsoft among its clients, while LegalZoom has set up to offer online legal advice to consumers. The IT Country Justice My particular interest in AI has been in its application to the law so let’s have a brief look at that issue. Viewed dispassionately the proposals are not “Orwellian” nor do they suggest the elevation of “Terminator J” to the Bench. It may also serve to put a different perspective on AI and the future. In a recent article, Lex Machina’s Chief Data Scientist observed that data analytics refined information to match specific situations. Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company, announced the latest expansion of its Legal Analytics® platform into antitrust law, following its recent expansion into securities law in July. In a release, the company said the move is part of the company’s ongoing plan to expand its Legal Analytics platform beyond intellectual property law to cover every federal practice area, including commercial, product liability, employment, commercial bankruptcy and more. Several law firms have differentiated themselves in the high-stakes arena of antitrust litigation and have risen to lead the pack to become the go-to shops for clients seeking representation in antitrust cases in the U.S., according to a report released Tuesday. Picture this: You’re building an antitrust case in Central California and want to get an idea of potential outcomes based on everything from judges, to districts, to decisions and length of litigation. In days of law past, coming up with an answer might involve walking down the hall and asking a partner or two about their experiences in such matters, then begin writing a budget around a presumed time frame. The legal analytics company Lex Machina is announcing today its expansion into a third practice area, antitrust law. This follows its expansion in July to add securities law. Until its acquisition last year by LexisNexis, Lex Machina had focused exclusively on intellectual property. Since the acquisition, it has been using LexisNexis’s collection of federal and state docket data to expand into other practice areas. When Lex Machina was acquired by LexisNexis last year, the company promised that the huge Lexis data archive would be leveraged to expand Lex Machina beyond its original intellectual property Mark A. Lemley is an intellectual property thought leader who wears many hats. Mark is the William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, a founding partner of the Durie Tangri LLP law firm, and co-founder and Board of Directors member of the data analytics company Lex Machina. Mark has authored numerous books, law review articles, and amicus briefs. He has argued many federal appellate cases and has won numerous awards for his work in the field of intellectual property law. Like almost every online retailer, Spice Jungle LLC emails tracking numbers to customers when they place orders. That’s why the small firm was dumbfounded when it received a demand to pay $25,000 for the right to do so. Spice Jungle is among more than 100 mostly small companies sued in 2016 by Shipping & Transit, whose litigiousness makes it the largest filer of patent lawsuits in the U.S. this year, according to legal analytics firm Lex Machina. This fall, a seemingly minor part of the U.S. patent system grabbed a great amount of attention when a case involving design patents was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal issue at question in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple asks SCOTUS to consider whether an award for design patent infringement damages should be the total profits of the sale of the infringing article of manufacture, which is the current statute, or whether damages should be limited to the profits attributable to those components covered by the design patents. On October 11th, legal analytics firm Lex Machinareleased an intellectual property litigation report covering the third quarter of 2016. The report indicates that IP litigation in U.S. district courts is declining across the board, although the potential for volatility still exists in certain sectors thanks to some important players. Analysts are expecting a humdrum earnings season from US banks, which begin to report third-quarter numbers today. Combined profits for the big six — JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — are expected to fall about 9 per cent from the same period last year, to $20.1bn. For the big US banks, almost all of the Lehman-era matters appear to be in the rear-view mirror. But that does not mean that new threats are not lurking. The third quarter saw 327 new securities-case filings, according to Lex Machina, an analytics company — the highest quarterly total since 2009, and about one-third higher than the quarterly average since 2011. This year looks set to be the slowest for US patent lawsuits since 2011, according to intellectual property litigation research company Lex Machina. 2016 is on pace to log the fewest number of new patent cases since 2011, according to a quarterly intellectual property litigation trends report released on Tuesday by legal analytics firm Lex Machina. There were 3,376 new patent cases filed during the first three quarters of 2016, the lowest number of filings during the equivalent periods since 2011, when there were 2,484 cases filed during the first three quarters, according to the data compiled by Lex Machina, a unit of LexisNexis. According to Lex Machina’s current prediction for the year, 2016 will see a total of just over 4,700 new lawsuits. This would be the lowest level since 2011. Over the last four years litigation volumes have been at unprecedented levels thanks, in large part, to new joinder rules introduced by the America Invents Act. Artificial intelligence’s (AI) entrance into any profession often features an odd mixture of ominous predictions from affected workers and executives extolling the virtues of ‘innovation,’ ‘change,’ and whatever other flashy, vague adjectives apply to the situation. Yet between the hype and horror lies a more moderate, less sexy truth that proceeds on a slower trajectory than vocal pro-and-opponents would have you believe. Traditional legal analytics platforms extract metadata and core content from documents and present them in an easy-to-interpret layout. Enter Lex Machina, whose AI engine expands analytics’ capabilities through understanding content on an almost human level. Brian Howard, legal data scientist at Lex Machina, says that the platform analyzes “unstructured data in docket entry text and court filings to recognize and extract key pieces of information, like the patent numbers of asserted patents, and to categorize the data, like whether this motion is seeking summary judgment.” As investors and companies battle in courts from Manhattan’s southern tip to downtown San Francisco, a handful of defense and plaintiffs firms likewise tussle for control of high-stakes cases — and a few firms have established themselves as the go-to for bet-the-company litigation. Like a kid in a candy shop. That’s how I feel about two new apps by Lex Machina that launch this week, the Law Firms Comparator and the Courts & Judges Comparator. Lex Machina let me play around with them before their official debut. Along with other Lex Machina offerings, the apps provide a deep, data-driven level of scrutiny of law firms, litigators and judges. Lex Machina today unveiled two “comparator apps” designed to make it simpler to access specific types of analytics insights. One, the Courts & Judges Comparator, allows up to four federal judges and courts to be compared for caseloads, case timelines, and other analytics. The other, the Law Firms Comparator, allows the same sorts of comparisons for up to four law firms. Growing its topic-focused legal app offerings, Lex Machina announced the release of two apps—the Courts and Judges Comparator and the Law Firm Comparator—on its analytics platform to better assist attorneys in quickly finding and leveraging comparative data. Lex Machina is not a hard product to use. It is loaded with data and offers lawyers an infinite landscape of data permutations. As I have often said “lawyers don’t want research products that make them feel like they are wiring a powerplant. They want to flip a light switch. In 2014 Lex Machina launched three desktop ‘” apps”: the early case assessor,the motion kick starter and the patent portfolio evaluator. These are the “light switches” of litigation data discovery. Today they are announcing the release of two more “apps” the court and judges comparator and the law firm comparator. Corporate legal departments and law firms are being asked to operate more like businesses, both in overall management of the practice as well as individual case management. That’s why the term “business intelligence,” long the domain of Silicon Valley giants like Google and Amazon, is starting to creep its way into law— to provide a data-backed basis for making crucial decisions. Although the data Lex Machina provides is complex, the idea behind the product is simple. The way that companies have traditionally hired lawyers and won cases is not correlated with the only metric that matters: winning. Lex Machina mines million of pages of legal documents to allow lawyers to see which lawyers are litigating in front of specific judges and how they are performing. Today, I’m joined by Lex Machina’s Owen Byrd to discuss the company’s move into securities litigation. Last November saw a huge spike in new patent case filings as plaintiffs brought lawsuits before new, more detailed pleading standards came into effect on 1st December. That led to 847 cases being filed, far in excess of typical monthly numbers – something that helped to make 2015 the second busiest on record. With many story lines abounding, a data-based view of the current intellectual property landscape is always useful. Recently, legal analytics firm Lex Machina published an IP litigation trends report for the second quarter of 2016. Although the quarter saw an uptick in patent litigation from the year’s first quarter, there is some reason to believe that such litigation is currently in a downward trend. Today Lex Machina launched the first analytics product for securities litigators at event in New York City, which was held at the Park Avenue Gansevoort Hotel. I had the opportunity to attend today’s event featuring two of Lex Machina’s top executives. There are fewer copyright lawsuits over online file-sharing in the United States, according to a new study comparing recent quarters. Lex Machina reports in its “2016 Second Quarter IP Litigation Trends” blog post that there were 249 file-sharing lawsuits filed in Q2 of 2016, compared to 517 cases in a previous quarter. Once a buzzword, analytics is changing the way law firms and legal departments process and act on information. After making strides by providing analytics for IP law, LexisNexis company Lex Machina plans to take its platform to all areas of federal practice, the first step of which will be into securities law. Until today, Lex Machina had focused exclusively on intellectual property. But ever since its acquisition by LexisNexis, Lex Machina has planned to use LexisNexis’s extensive collection of federal and state docket data to expand into other practice areas, starting with federal practice areas. The number of copyright lawsuits in the US over online file-sharing have dropped significantly this year, according to data compiled by Lex Machina. Data released by the legal research company shows there were 249 file-sharing lawsuits filed in the second quarter of 2016, compared to 517 cases the previous year. The speed at which data is being created and how it is analysed are changing the legal world. Some 90% of data in the world today was created in the last two years. Crunching data can be useful in helping to accurately predict the outcome of litigation or other legal decisions. The Californian start-up Lex Machina, which specialises in IP litigation research and counts Google and Nike among its clients, creates structured datasets from publicly available data. A group of 45 professors sent the following letter to Congress arguing for statutory reforms to limit venue in patent infringement cases. One focus of this move is to direct intention toward a focused and limited action rather than another round of comprehensive patent reforms. New patent lawsuit in the US were down by close to 1,000 filings in the first half of 2016 compared with the first six months of 2015, providing a further indication that the marked drop off in cases since December may be part of a longer-term trend. Bodybuilders are competitive. They are tough. And when former-bodybuilder Jared Wheat was pushed, he pushed back. Although fashion brands are earning the highest number of damages from its trademark infringement suits, it does not necessarily follow that these brands are the most valuable but perhaps the easiest to copy. We got a chance to speak with Brian Howard, Lex Machina legal data scientist and a co-author of the report, and he noted that unlike patents, where IP owners can wait to file suit after infringement has been spotted, trademark owners must protect their mark quickly or risk losing their rights to the mark. Fashion brands have earned prominent placement on a list of companies that are most consistently monitoring unauthorized uses of their names and logos (read: trademarks), and initiating legal action in connection therewith. According to a report published compiled by legal analytics data firm, Lex Machina, which released its second annual trademark litigation year in review report. One of the stories of the year so far has undoubtedly been the dramatic fall in US patent litigation filings in the first quarter. What we don’t know quite yet is whether Q1 presaged a longer trend or represents a short-term correction. According to the most up-to-date figures from Lex Machina, new filings remain well down year-on-year. Trademark filings dipped slightly in 2015, but have for the most part remained steady over the last seven years, according to a report released on Monday. The report, which is produced by data analytics company Lex Machina and draws on seven years worth of data from federal court dockets, says 3,532 trademark cases were filed in 2015, compared with 4,307 in 2014. Fashion firms have been active in protecting their marks, according to Lex Machina’s data on trademark litgation cases in federal court. Coach was the leading plaintiff in trademark cases filed, with 676 cases. Chanel was second with 330 cases. Deckers Outdoor Corp. was high on the list, totaling 164 cases filed. Another fashion firm that made the top 16 was Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, which had 81 cases. The Central District of California, the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida were the top three venues for trademark litigation from 2009 through the first quarter of 2016, according to a report issued Monday by legal analytics company Lex Machina. French fashion house Chanel was awarded the most damages — nearly $1 billion — during the time period, followed by Burberry Ltd. with $523 million and Gucci with $208 million, the report says. Legal analytics company Lex Machina has released its 2016 Trademark Litigation Report, the company’s second annual trademark study of key metrics, including filings, findings, remedies and damages in trademark cases. The amount of trademark litigation filed each year in the U.S. has remained fairly steady over time, but the Central District of California, the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Florida were the most popular districts for trademark lawsuits. Fashion brands have earned prominent placement on a list of companies that are most consistently monitoring unauthorized uses of their names and logos (read: trademarks), and initiating legal action in connection therewith. According to a report published compiled by legal analytics data firm, Lex Machina, which released its second annual trademark litigation year in review report. Chanel, Deckers, Tiffany, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Coach were the most common parties to “win relinquishment of a domain name” in cybersquatting cases this past year, according to data released Monday. The report shows that the Central District of California was the most popular district for trademark filings. “The legal industry is ripe for innovation,” says attorney and journalist Robert Ambrogi, who covers the role of technology in law. In an influential April 13 blog post, Ambrogi proclaimed a boom in legal tech startups based on a more than doubling of listings on startup directory AngelList. The innovation upsurge may in part be generational. “If you make partner today in a law firm, and if you were in college with Google, you have different expectations of technology,” says Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina. “AI has transformed the legal field—from predictive coding systems for large document productions during discovery to sophisticated NLP to provide analytics for litigation,” says Brian Howard, legal data scientist, Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company providing legal analytics to companies and law firms. The first thing people tell you about Judge Rodney Gilstrap is that he’s not from Marshall. In the small Texas city (population 24,000) east of Dallas where he presides as a US district court judge, where you’re from matters, and the 59-year-old Gilstrap was actually born in Pensacola, Florida. The way in which in-house legal departments assess, select and evaluate external counsel continues to bear remnants of the Stone Age, according to some observers. Data metrics – the science of uncovering hidden patterns from raw data – is increasingly being used as a tool to evaluate and choose outside counsel. Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company and creator of Legal Analytics, announced the release of its second Hatch-Waxman/ANDA Report, which surveys the landscape of patent litigation related to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) submitted to the FDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The report focuses on trends and insights from 2,249 ANDA cases filed in U.S. district courts between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015. One of the examples of companies applying data mining and predictive analytics techniques to forecast outcomes of IP litigation is Lex Machina, which was also mentioned in the report. But the innovators from Lex Machina went further with Motion Kickstarter, a solution that helps attorneys to compare the arguments and motion styles that have been successful before a specific judge. Predictive analytics are often used by businesses for marketing, helping them identify trends that impact consumer buying. However, as Owen Byrd, general counsel for Lex Machina,points out, firms now use analytics to predict the behavior of judges, juries, and venues based on past cases tried in those environments. By having access to this data early on, law firms can prepare accordingly and have an edge before the trial even begins. In the current system, a patent can be challenged in one of two ways. One is to go through a federal court. Another is to go through the Patent and Trademark Office through a procedure known as Inter Partes Review. Those two venues use two different standards for the same purpose of examining a patent and deciding whether it’s valid. A new study published by legal analytics group Lex Machina has found that the number of ‘ANDA’ filings—patent litigation filings which relate to new drug applications before the US Food and Drug Administration—rose around 68 per cent for 2014-2015 when compared to the average for the last five years. Patent suits over abbreviated new drug applications have increased significantly over the last two years, and a handful of major firms have positioned themselves as the go-to counsel for the high-stakes cases, handling more of them than any other firm, according to a report released Tuesday. The number of patent litigation filings related to new drug applications before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, commonly known as ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Applications) filings, increased 68 percent in 2014-15 compared with the average number of cases filed in each of the previous five years,a new report by the legal analytics company Lex Machina says. Intellectual property litigation analytics firm Lex Machina has recently released a report identifying trends in IP litigation which have played out over the course of the first quarter of 2016. The first quarter saw some interesting developments in regards to decreases in certain types of litigation throughout the IP world. The Lone Star State had 18 of the top 100 verdicts in 2015, beating out California and Florida. In fact, three of the top 10 verdicts came out of Texas — only one of which was an intellectual property verdict coming out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In all, three came out of that district, despite its status as home to nearly 44 percent of all patent cases filed in 2015, according to an annual report released last month by Lex Machina, a legal analytics firm in Menlo Park, California. Lemley heads the Stanford Program in Law, Science & Technology. He also co-founded data analytics company Lex Machina Inc. and boutique intellectual property firm Durie Tangri LLP, which counts some of Silicon Valley’s largest players among its clients. A new report recently released by Lex Machina reveals patent litigation increased significantly in 2015, with total number of patent cases filed up 14.7 percent year-over-year. Interestingly the number of filings in the Eastern District of Texas alone increased by 78 percent. PACER (Public Access to Electronic Court Records, the court system’s website) can be a powerful tool for users seeking case and docket information from federal courts, but users should exercise care when relying upon some of its data — especially the attorney information contained in the more than one billion documents currently housed in its database. For a while it seemed that everyone was suing everyone over patents, especially in the world of mobile technology. However, there may be some hope that things are at long last on the wane. There were only 955 patent suits filed in the first quarter of 2016, the lowest level since 2011, according to legal analytics firm Lex Machina. The number of patent lawsuits filed in the first quarter of 2016 dropped to its lowest point since 2011, according to entities that track patent litigation data. But this does not mean the patent litigation tide is finally turning. “It’s possible what we saw in December through February was the low tide surrounding a tidal wave,” Howard said. “And the climb up to 390 in March is within the norm of 2015.” IP litigation research firm Lex Machina has recently released a 2015 year in review report looking at the world of patent litigation. Back in January, we here at IPWatchdog had reported on some patent litigation trend highlights reported by Lex Machina, which had developed over the past year. Momentum interviews Karl Harris, Lex Machina’s Vice President of Products, for his session at the IP Counsel Exchange in San Jose, May 11. According to business wisdom, you must “know what you’re selling.” Many products make it easy by having well-defined “specs” that are part of the sales pitch. When it comes to legal tech, however, knowing what you’re selling means understanding a complex activity – legal interpretation. To listen to many tech CEOs, there has been an unchecked scourge on the patent system for the better part of the last generation. There are apparently many patents that shouldn’t have issued. While the problem is defined there has been great reluctance to say what such a conclusion must necessarily mean. Lex Machina released its patent litigation in review 2015 earlier this week and many of the headline numbers from the data provider’s annual deep dive are fairly well known by now. As ever with this report, however, it is the depth and context that Lex Machina adds where the real value lies. Samsung Electronics America, for instance, took top spot as defendant ranked by new cases with 64 suits filed against. Data analytics company Lex Machina published its annual year in review on patent litigation on Tuesday, confirming that 2015 saw a near-record number of patent cases filed in district courts, with more than 43 percent of those filed in the Eastern District of Texas. While patent attorneys may already be aware of these findings, the data also reveals new information that can prove useful to companies and their attorneys. Earlier this month (on Friday, March 4), the Supreme Court of the United States already had Samsung’s December 2015 petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple’s design patents case on its agenda. It’s nothing unusual for a case to be relisted, and it happened in this case. The Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tx.) is responsible for almost half of all patent suits filed in 2015, and one judge, Rodney Gilstrap, is handling 80% of the cases, 1,686 of them. This is part of the findings of the latest “Patent Litigation Year in Review” just out from IP analytics firm Lex Machina. The number of patent cases filed in federal court jumped up in 2015, and the Eastern District of Texas emerged as the single most popular place to file cases by a large margin, according to a report scheduled for release on Wednesday. The country’s two most popular phone makers, Apple and Samsung, are still getting smacked by dozens of lawsuits from so-called “patent trolls,” which are shell companies that make no products. Meanwhile, a single district in Texas, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia once branded a “renegade jurisdiction,” continues to occupy an outsize role in this ongoing patent pileup. A new Lex Machina report highlights the firms that worked on the most new patent litigation last year at the district court level for plaintiffs and defendants. Here, Law360 takes a closer look at the top firms in each category. As part of Lex Machina’s patent litigation report for 2015, which is set to be released Wednesday, it found that McCarter & English LLP handled the most newly filed patent cases for plaintiffs, holding a steep lead with 121 cases. Legal Analytics involves the use of data to make quantitative legal predictions that inform decisions made in both the business of law and the practice of law. Legal Analytics represents a paradigm shift for lawyers. For an in-house department, data helps do three things central to its function: manage risk, make good strategic choices and control spending. We asked Lex Machina for the data on new cases filed each month since the start of 2012. We then turned that into a graph and annotated it with key events over the course of the last four years. Not all of them have a direct impact on the filing of lawsuits but they help put the numbers in greater context. Lex Machina, a litigation data analytics company, announced it has added an improved Attorney Search Engine to its platform, so that users can more accurately track which attorneys work on any particular case. According to Owen Byrd, the company’s general counsel, the program uses natural language processing to search the signature block of litigation filings, and also to see which attorneys were admitted to a case on a “pro hac vice” basis. 3 Geeks and a Law Blog One of the best features that Lex Machina provides for Intellectual Property attorneys is their increased accuracy of information pulled from PACER. Now Lex Machina has turned its focus on cleaning up another annoyance found in PACER data, as well as many of the other platforms that pull data from PACER. Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company and creator of Legal Analytics today released Attorney Data Engine, which aims to improve the quality and accuracy of attorney data for District Court cases. “With our new Attorney Data Engine, Lex Machina continues to innovate and push the boundaries of legal analytics,” said Karl Harris, vice president of products at Lex Machina.” Here’s a quick quiz: Who were the law firms who have worked on the numerous Apple v. Samsung court battles? In fact, I’ll even make this an open note quiz, and you can use any platform you’d like. Now… headed to PACER, aren’t you? Legal analytics company Lex Machina — which LexisNexis acquired in November — is introducing a new feature today that is designed to correct and improve upon the information PACER provides about attorneys of record in federal district court lawsuits. Called the Attorney Data Engine, it leverages various data sources extracted from PACER to correct the data that PACER does provide about attorneys. The Lex Machina PTAB report summarizes trends in petitions filed since the administrative body was formed in September 2012 through petitions terminated as late as December 2015. The 2,700 PTAB petitions analyzed in this report are more than half of the total petitions filed at PTAB; this study doesn’t include data from petitions that haven’t terminated as of yet. In this episode of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay interviews Lex Machina CEO Josh Becker. Together, they discuss the value of data analytics when it comes to making decisions in litigation. Organizations like Becker’s are able to collect data points that show, among many other things, the historic instances of judges ruling on certain motions, wins vs. losses of opposing counsel, and the length of proceedings. A recent report by legal analytics firm Lex Machina finds that patents brought before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which has a general reputation for stifling intellectual property owners, are less at risk than many observers think. But the study by Lex Machina, which examines all 2,700 decisions from the Board’s first three years of operation, finds that patents are surviving the process 66% of the time. The Apple patent that might become subject to the review is the so called “tap-to-zoom” patent – number 7,864,163 – which is one of the utility filings that Samsung was found to have infringed by a jury in the Northern District of California. Damages from that case against the Korean tech giant were originally set at just over $1 billion but have since been challenged and revised. Last February we wrote about the number of CBMs that had been filed against NPE Smartflash by Apple, Google and Samsung. That story came just after Smartflash had bagged an initial $533 million award against the Cupertino-based giant – an award which is now the subject of a retrial. Given Virnetx’s serial harassment protests I asked Lex Machina to compile a list of the most frequently challenged patents at the PTAB. Obtaining a patent is the best way to protect your intellectual property, but sometimes you must defend that patent in court. Lex Machina, a provider of analytics for the legal industry, recently used its big data capabilities to analyze what’s going on at the federal Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Apple is in a curious position when it comes to patents. It owns piles of them, and its lawyers regularly deploy them to beat the stuffing out of rival Samsung. According to a new report by legal analytics company Lex Machina, Apple filed 252 so-called PTAB challenges since September of 2012, which is nearly 100 more than the second top filer, Samsung. In a report released on Thursday, the legal analytics company Lex Machina summarized key trends at the PTAB and provided information about petitioners, judges, law firms, the average duration of cases and data on trial outcomes. Lex Machina reports that 20 percent of terminated PTAB petitions were denied institution, and another 19 percent were settled before the institution decision was reached. A new report from Lex Machina revealed some interesting trends about trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The “Lex Machina Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2015 Report” highlighted these recent findings derived from Lex Machina’s Legal Analytics for PTAB offering, regarding such areas as inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) petitions, as well as terminated trials. A surge of patent infringement lawsuits filed late last November might still be subject to new, potentially tougher pleading standards that took effect Dec. 1—if the defendant in one of the suits gets its way. Today I received a really interesting Lex Machina press release. Its new “Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2015 Report” provides lots of insight about last year’s trials before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Data-centric lawyering may represent the biggest change in law since research moved from books to computers. Today, technology-savvy lawyers are routinely mining publicly available litigation data to make predictions about how parties to litigation, judges and opposing counsel are likely to behave. When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board first started deciding cases in 2012, intellectual property specialists worried the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had created a patent-eating monster. Of the first 20 challenges that made it to a final decision, 17 resulted in losses for the patent holder. On Thursday, January 7th, legal data analytics firm Lex Machina published a report on litigation trends through 2015 for a range of intellectual property sectors. In general, the published data indicates that patent infringement cases rose through the 2015 calendar year while trademark infringement cases remained consistent and copyright infringement suits dropped sharply compared to recent quarters. Patent litigation soared in 2015, and nearly 44 percent of the year’s new lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, legal analytics company Lex Machina reported Thursday. “It’s astounding that one district would capture more than 40 percent of all the cases filed,” said Brian Howard, Lex Machina’s legal data scientist. There’s no doubt that many observers expected that 2015 would see another fall in litigation after the drop in 2014. Prevailing market conditions, and the climate in the courts in particular, which has become increasingly hostile for plaintiffs, made the case for a drop in 2015 a compelling one. Erich Spangenberg, the founder of IPNav who knows more than most about district court litigation in the US, even made a continued decline one of his predictions for 2015. He was at least quick to concede that he had got that one wildly wrong. Ari Kaplan Interview I spoke with Karl Harris, the Vice President of Products for Lex Machina, a software-as-a-service provider of data analytics for patent and trademark litigation data, recently acquired by LexisNexis, where he leads all product management, development, and strategy. We discussed Lex Machina’s custom insight apps designed to help lawyers leverage information to win cases and close business, how they integrate with Lex Machina’s legal analytics platform, the tools it is launching, and where the sector is headed in 2016, among other topics. Although the fact that numbers were not disclosed in Lexis Nexis’ purchase of legal analytics company Lex Machina, the acquisition itself is significant. Will Lex Machina be able to scale its business with the backing of Lexis Nexis and will analytics be a tool that every firm begins to use in order to get a leg up? But that’s not the only reason the acquisition is meaningful. In 2016, every CEO trying to build an analytics startup will point to the Lex Machina acquisition as evidence of potential acquirers. Businesses and individuals filed a record 851 patent infringement lawsuits in November — more than half of them in the federal courts of East Texas — amid concerns that new court rules could make it more difficult for their litigation to be successful. The litigation blitz, which solidifies the Tyler-based Eastern District of Texas as the patent litigation capital of America, was sparked by a change to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect Dec. 1. For Lex Machina subscribers and big data enthusiasts, it’s not the end of the Silicon Valley-based data analytics provider but the awakening of legal analytics in areas beyond intellectual property, such as discrimination and employment law. If you have doubts that Lex Machina will operate independently of the mother ship, check out the company’s recent news release on PTAB 2.0. The new era of legal analytics focuses on attorney strategies and success. Startup companies looking to disrupt the LexisNexis and West duopoly on legal information are offering variations on what is being referred to as “moneyball for lawyers.” Lex Machina crunches court data to inform attorneys where best to litigate patents. Ross Intelligence applies IBM’s Watson to enhance bankruptcy practices. The legal profession will become more economically efficient and transparent, delivering better results for those most in need of legal services. While some traditionalist lawyers may resist the application of Legal Analytics to law, those who embrace it, especially today’s early adopters, are likely to gain significant and lasting competitive advantage. The Company’s patent analytics platform has stirred demand for data analytics across the legal industry. Even while blazing the trail, Lex Machina has been continually reinventing its products and itself, having just this year expanded from patent law to trademark and copyright litigation as well. “Machine learning is just as it sounds. Every night the machine crawls these documents, it gets a little smarter.” “We have taken legal analytics for PTAB to the next level,” said Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina, in a statement. “In today’s dynamic patent litigation environment, lawyers need to look at all litigation options, including PTAB, district court and the International Trade Commission, in order to present the best legal strategy or patent defense. Our legal analytics for PTAB makes it easy for lawyers to evaluate every conceivable angle and create data-driven strategies that win cases.” Legal Analytics has been steadily gaining traction and credibility but this month suppliers of ‘artificial intelligence’ tools almost rubbed their hands in glee as AI tok a step further and went mainstream with Lex Machina’s acquisition by LexisNexis. Commenting on the acquisition Crowell & Moring IP partner Teresa Rea said: “Lex Machina gives us more analytics than we could ever imagine. It has made our day job a bit easier and more interesting. LexisNexis will make the Lex Machina platform even better and provide a broader reach.” Legal research provider LexisNexis Group has acquired Lex Machina, a first mover in the area of litigation analytics, the companies announced Monday. The move will expand offerings to Lexis users and could rapidly deploy Lex Machina’s technology to areas beyond its roots in intellectual property. While the financials of the deal were not disclosed, Lex Machina CEO Josh Becker said the Silicon Valley-based company will continue to exist as a subsidiary of LexisNexis, allowing it to maintain its culture and continue to develop the product with the support of the larger organization. “The only thing inhibiting our entry into other areas of the law is access to content,” said Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina. “By joining the LexisNexis family, we will accelerate the introduction of Legal Analytics to more practice areas and enhance insights for our customers with the advanced technology of the Lexis Advance platform.” The acquisition will help Lex Machina accelerate our growth trajectory on our mission to bring legal analytics to all of the law. We will continue to operate as a stand-alone entity within North American Research Solutions at LexisNexis Legal & Professional. For more than a week, credible but unconfirmed rumors have been flying through the legal information community. This morning I received the press release confirming the acquisition. For now I will just say this is certainly a brilliant more for LexisNexis: “Well done LexisNexis.” Venerable legal research provider LexisNexis has acquired data analytics company Lex Machina in a move to add technologies to allow users to better understand the legal landscape and their challenges, the company announced on Nov. 23. Previously focused on IP law, the acquisition will provide Lex Machina with the resources necessary to expand its analytics algorithm to other practice areas. The acquisition also paves the way for LexisNexis to make those tools available to its base of research users, company officials said. I had an opportunity to speak with Steven Errick, vice president and managing director of research services at LexisNexis, who gave me more details about the deal and plans for the future. With regard to Lex Machina’s staff and operations, little will change, Errick said. Lex Machina will be a wholly owned subsidiary of LexisNexis and will continue to operate as a standalone unit. Lex Machina CEO Josh Becker will continue to run Lex Machina and it will remain in its current Menlo Park, Calif., location. Imagine that you could make a data-driven prediction about how opposing legal teams or judges will behave. Or that you could anticipate the results that a specific legal strategy or argument is likely to produce. If you had that power, would you continue to rely exclusively on traditional legal research and reasoning as the basis for your legal strategy? Or would you take the “Moneyball” approach by integrating legal analytics—data and insights gleaned from litigation dockets and documents—into your case to increase your chances for a successful outcome? Patent litigation has been changed forever. A lot of lawyers preferred the old way. Monumental changes to U.S. patent law have changed the rules of the litigation game. Basic assumptions about patent law that existed just a few years ago no longer apply. The changes have raised new questions about venue, costs and validity. Some in the patent bar are calling it a “brave new world.” Lex Machina has taken the most mundane of legal data sets– docket entries– and spun it into a oldmine of legal insights. Lex Machina is not a hard product to use, but it offers a dizzying array of options which a lawyer with minimal training can master. This week Lex Machina announced the release of a ‘suite of custom insight apps’ which make it even easier. It is essentially a very sophisticated kind of “data mining for idiots.” Lex Machina offers tools that are designed to enable its users to make more informed—or as they call it, data-driven—decisions. On Oct. 21, the company announced a trio of apps that will apply the company’s experience processing and analyzing unstructured legal information to specific legal challenges, including pre-trial intelligence, motion strategy and patent evaluation. Lawyers are under pressure to control costs, which means doing more with less and working quickly. Keeping that in mind, the legal analytics company Lex Machina is today launching three new applications designed to give intellectual property attorneys instant access to strategic patent, copyright and trademark litigation information. Applications target specific attorney needs and set the table for additional custom tailored tools in the future. “We’re launching what we call ‘Custom Insight Apps,’” Owen Byrd, GC and Chief Evangelist of Lex Machina, told Legaltech News. “These apps are intended to address the greatest challenge for lawyers, which is the ‘need for speed.’ We’re trying to enable lawyers to get instant answers on specific use cases out of our data, and make it easier and faster for them to apply it to their work.” There were 33 percent fewer patent lawsuits filed in the third quarter of 2015 than in 2014, according to data published today by Lex Machina. 1,119 new patent cases were filed in Q3 2015, compared to last year’s record-setting 1,665 cases in the same quarter. Looking at the year as a whole, 4,255 cases were filed in the first nine months of 2015, compared with 3,941 cases in 2014 and 4,593 cases in 2013. Lex Machina is a company that has gained a reputation for providing legal analytics for patent litigators, and has recently expanded its reach to analyze copyright and trademark information for intellectual property attorneys. The company found that a large percentage of copyright cases dealt with file sharing sites, peer-to-peer sites where anonymous users could illegally share copyrighted material with others. Even though many firms remain behind the times, they soon may not be. New technologies and increased competition are forcing the legal industry to slowly remake itself. “The billable hour is the culprit of everything,” explains Ralph Baxter, the former chairman and CEO of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. For example, the start-up Lex Machina can speedily mine and analyze litigation data that would take an army of associates months to go through. Although copyright litigation is more often associated with entertainment or publishing businesses, retail and apparel industries should pay close attention. A new report on copyright litigation trends signals that a large portion of copyright cases involve clothing retailers and textile pattern companies. Long after the use of data and analytics has become commonplace in industries ranging from retail to insurance to baseball, the legal profession is now beginning take advantage of an emerging class of tools intended to help law firms win cases. Indeed, creators of legal analytics technology say a variety of technical and cultural challenges have slowed development and user acceptance of the legal analytics technology, which combines data and software to present law firms with output helpful in decision-making. At Lex Machina, which mines litigation data from court records to help inform the handling of IP lawsuits — with more practice areas to come — chief evangelist and general counsel Owen Byrd reports that corporations sometimes check in with him about whether a particular law firm uses its services. After all, where the data exists, the analysis has been done and the information is presented in an accessible format, why would anyone fight a lawsuit without it? Compared to law firms that are working with smaller data sets and cannot focus solely on analytics, however, Lex Machina is on the cutting edge. Patent litigation, which only a few months ago appeared to be on the decline, is actually rising significantly.”At this rate, 2015 is on track to exceed 6,000 cases by the end of the year,” says Josh Becker, Lex Machina’s chief executive officer. That would beat the record set in 2013. If you work in an IP-heavy industry, you know just how important a role litigation can play in protecting (or abusing) intellectual property rights. Now, Lex Machina, the IP litigation research company, has conducted one of the first, wide-ranging overviews of copyright litigation trends over the past years. While copyright infringement is often regarded as the domain of publishers of printed materials, music, and movies, designers and manufacturers of patterns and fabrics are increasingly targeting retailers with lawsuits, according to a new report from legal strategist Lex Machina. The analysis found that retailers are now one of the top groups of defendants in copyright infringement cases surrounding textile patterns. In August, Lex Machina released the first-ever Copyright Litigation Report, which revealed trends and insights in copyright litigation from thousands of copyright cases in U.S. District Courts from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2015. This new report analyzed filing trends, decisions, and timing to key events, as well as settlement rates, damages and other data. From April to June, lawyers shattered all records when they filed 839 patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas. That’s a 53.6 percent increase from the first three months of 2015, which had also set a record for a single three-month period, according to Lex Machina, a California-based supplier of data about intellectual property litigation. Nationwide, a record 1,656 lawsuits alleging patent encroachment were filed during the second quarter. Josh Becker worked both sides of Silicon Valley’s startup and tech world before joining legal analytics business Lex Machina as CEO. The former VC and entrepreneur said what he has learned at Palo Alto-based Lex Machina should concern anybody whose livelihood is built on patents, trademarks and copyrights, as well as some who may not be aware that they could become entangled in intellectual property litigation. The legal analytics company that has worked to change the way attorneys approach patent litigation is hoping to do the same in the copyright world. Lex Machina, which grew out of a project run by Stanford University’s law school and its computer science department, has published a 37-page “Copyright Litigation Report,” developed from litigation data and court decisions covering thousands of copyright cases filed in U.S. district courts over the past five years. The report analyzes key filings, findings, judgment types, decisions, resolutions, damages and other data. Lex Machina has released a report highlighting trends and insights from copyright cases files in US district courts from January 1 2009 to June 30 this year. The report reveals copyright litigation is a concentrated business. The Central District of California’s 2,496 cases since 2009 give it a 26.2% share, while the Southern District of NewYork’s 1,061 cases give it an 11.1% share. A report crunching more than six years of copyright lawsuits filed in the U.S. has revealed that porn troll Malibu Media is the country’s most litigious plaintiff. The company, which demands thousands of dollars from individual file-sharers, filed 4,332 lawsuits since January 2009, fifteen times more than its nearest rival. Overall, it’s estimated that 90% of file-sharing cases are settled out of court. In the first six months of 2015, 3,122 new federal patent cases were filed, exceeding the total for any prior first-half-year period and reversing the downward trend in new case filings in 2014, according to a report by Lex Machina, a provider of legal analytics. Every year, lawyers file litigation claims said to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and yet few lawyers have embraced data analytics to guide their litigation decisions in the way that bond traders or other industries rely on such tools. That could be changing: A raft of new software and technology companies, including a few that are working directly with law firms, are mining the vast amounts of data available on litigation trends in both complex and simple cases to bring analytic tools to the legal industry. Experts believe these tools may be poised for serious growth in coming years and could inject new competition among law firms. Patent litigation, which only a few months ago appeared to be declining, is actually rising significantly. Patent owners are filing a record number of U.S. lawsuits as Congress considers rules designed to curb the litigation trend. Patent case filings have been generally higher in the first five months of 2015 than in the last 8 months of 2014. May of 2015 had the most patent cases filed on any month so far this year (606 cases). But why are we seeing this recent increase in patent case filings? Isn’t this surprising given legislative, court, executive and administrative developments that have made it much more difficult to successfully sue for patent infringement? More than 3,100 new patent cases have been filed in federal court so far this year, a record-breaking number that could put patent filings in 2015 at an all-time high, according to a report released Tuesday. Legal analytics firm Lex Machina reported the first six months of 2015 were the busiest first-half-year period ever for patent litigation, buoyed in large part by the months of May and June. Opponents of current patent reform efforts in Congress stepped up their attack on the pending bills Tuesday, urging their fellow legislators to slow down, just as new data suggests 2015 is on track to be a record year for patent lawsuits. According to patent analytics firm Lex Machina, more than 3,100 patent suits were filed in federal district courts in the first half of 2015, the most ever seen in a six-month period. Since the first evidence started to emerge last October that there had been a drop in new patent lawsuits, much has been made of the fact that litigation is on the decline. Those arguing against patent reform in the US Congress have pointed to the data as evidence that new legislation is simply not necessary or should be significantly scaled back. Librarians told us they were doing much more strategic and analytical research, tech support and competitive intelligence for business development than in the past. To help with these tasks, librarians increasingly rely on legal analytics and data-mining tools such as Lex Machina, Relationship Science and Westlaw Intelligence Center. Using such tools, “a lawyer can do a custom analysis looking at a particular judge and a particular issue and how specific lawyers and judges have handled specific issues,” O’Grady says. “Librarians become the facilitators.” Despite the famous-in-tech-circles-only Marc Andreessen quote, “Software is eating the world,” not every industry is edible. But why not Biglaw? It is a regulated industry with expensive overhead, charging high hourly billing rates for work clients hate paying for, and lawyers hate doing. Owen Byrd, the chief evangelist and general counsel of Silicon Valley-based Lex Machina, a company that provides Moneyball-type data to lawyers, is at the forefront of legal disruption. As part of our Legal Tech Low-Down Series, we spoke with Owen Byrd, General Counsel and Chief Evangelist at Lex Machina. Lex Machina is an IP litigation analytics tool that mines litigation data for insights and information about judges, lawyer, parties, and patents. Lex Machina won American Association of Law Libraries’ award for Best Product of the Year 2015. The number of patent lawsuits filed in U.S. district courts is not, despite claims to the contrary, on the decline. Patent case filings generally were higher in the first five months of 2015 than in the last eight months of 2014. They also were higher than in the comparable five months of 2014, according to data analyzed by legal analytics company Lex Machina at the request of CorpCounsel.com. Lately I feel like a kid in an analytics candy store. The recent wave of products offering analytic insights is escalating the power of legal research and creating new opportunities for information professionals to offer “game changing” insights to the attorneys they support. Lex Machina is having a good year. AALL recently awarded Lex Machina the prestigious “New Product of the Year Award for 2015.” Lex Machina also launched two important new modules for Trademark and Copyright which include data on 57,000 trademark cases and 49,000 copyright cases. Lex Machina, the legal analytics company that’s changing the way many patent attorneys approach their cases, has launched a new platform, giving trademark and copyright attorneys for the first time the same tools that have benefited patent lawyers. This spring, the company unveiled its new platform, providing copyright and trademark lawyers with insights into the behavior of district court judges, opposing parties and opposing counsel. A recent publication by PricewaterhouseCoopers announced that patent suit filings in 2014 had reduced by 13% from the prior year, and concluded that this “dramatic shift” was “[d]riven by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which raised the bar for patentability and enforcement of software patents”. A far more comprehensive analysis of new district court filings was performed by Lex Machina (see “Patent Case Trends and the Business of Litigation“), which looked at a monthly comparison for new filings in 2014 over 2013 (calendar year). I have been pursuing research on Section 285 during my leave year from the University of Wisconsin. My principal finding is that judicial discretion matters regardless of the stated standard for the award of attorney’s fees. In other words, raising the standard, as occurred with Brooks Furniture, or lowering the standard, as occurred with Octane Fitness, may not matter over all as to how courts exercise their discretion. With patent infringement litigation still going strong, companies seek methods of protection. Patent trolls are a thorn in the side of many companies. Even when infringement claims are weak, many firms opt to settle just to avoid having to spend millions defending them in court, experts said. One major problem in the debate about patent litigation abuse is that the debate hasn’t really focused much on litigation abuse. The rhetoric used is all about stopping abuse, but the proposals themselves have little or nothing to do with fixing the problems of the system. While the patent world has been getting the lion’s share of IP attention in recent years, trademark attorneys also have been busy, filing more than 24,000 trademark cases since 2009—cases that have resulted in awards of more than $9 billion in cumulative damages, according to a new study by the legal analytics firm Lex Machina. In its first comprehensive “Trademark Litigation Report,” Lex Machina examined key metrics from trademark cases pending from 2009 through the first quarter of 2015, including filings, findings, remedies and damages. Lex Machina announced the release of the first comprehensive Trademark Litigation Report, analyzing key metrics including filings, findings, remedies, and damages in trademark cases pending from 2009 through the first quarter of 2015. The report reveals insights to the timing of the 6,900+ cases where permanent injunctions were granted, and the over $9 billion in cumulative damages awarded in trademark cases since 2009. Dan Katz predicts, there will not only be tech-focused jobs for lawyers, but tech-savvy lawyers will also have the upper hand in practice. They will provide a better service to clients by using technology and analytic-driven process improvement to understand and simplify their operations. Their costs will be lower and their legal work more predictable. “I think that’s a statement of our whole age,” Katz said in a more formal conversation less than an hour earlier. “Humans plus machines beats humans or machines for a whole range of processes.” In-house counsel are increasingly turning to smaller law firms when they need outside counsel to handle litigation related to intellectual property. A new study from the legal analytics company Lex Machina shows there has been a decline in the amount of IP defense work handled by Am Law 100 firms in recent years. Non-Am Law 100 firms, meanwhile, have seen a corresponding increase in the percentage of cases they handle, the study found. 3 Geeks and a Law Blog The most impressive review of Lex Machina came from an attorney that told me he was tired of getting beat by opposing counsel because they had this product. That is perhaps the best quote to ever hear from your attorneys when you are contemplating buying a new product. It’s hard to argue against. Predictive Solutions: Big data solutions are offering information professionals predictive insights. Manzama is a product that can capture spikes in social media activity. This can be an indicator of business development opportunities for clients that might beaffected by emerging regulatory, M&A or litigation issues. Lex Machina analyzes IP litigation data, giving insights into case assessments and predicting behavior of opposing counsel or judges based on their history in similar cases. Ralph Baxter, Lex Machina’s new Board member, became almost synonymous with his firm during his 22 years at the helm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. By the time he officially stepped down at the end of 2013, he had built the firm into a 1,000-plus-lawyer global force. He’d also gained the reputation as a risk-taking, ambitious innovator, spearheading the trend to relocate back-office work to lower-cost markets, among other moves. The Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, a case involving computer software, has led to a marked increase in patents being invalidated under Section 101 of Title 35 the United States Code covering subject matter eligibility. The findings are part of “2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review,” just out from Lex Machina, the litigation analytics firm. Federal courts receive record-high number of new filings, bolstered largely by state’s Eastern District A new judge in the Eastern District of Texas may be prompting a renewed surge in patent litigation. Federal courts received a record 1,453 patent lawsuits during the first three months of this year, surpassing the 1,275 lawsuits during the same period last year and just edging out the previous record of 1,440 in 2013, according to new data from Lex Machina, a Menlo Park-based legal analytics firm. Patent troll on a roll. Patent suits filed in federal court in South Florida. 2015 numbers are projected from first-quarter filings. ArrivalStar is South Florida’s most prolific patent troll. Fewer patent beefs were filed in 2014 than in 2013 in South Florida, mirroring a national trend, according to a Palm Beach Post analysis of federal court filings. It’s a bad time to be a patent troll. For more than a decade, trolling has been a relatively foolproof, risk-free business model that has lined the pockets of opportunistic plaintiffs and sullied the best-in-class reputation of the U.S. patent system. Now, thanks to recent reforms and major court developments, greater efficiency and accountability have been injected into that system. The Eastern District of Texas is officially the nation’s most popular patent litigation by far, according to a recent report. And it’s easy to see why. As the study shows, the region’s juries are consistently the most generous when handing out damage awards. The Eastern District topped the list by taking in 1,425 new patent infringement cases during 2014, according to the report from Lex Machina, a Silicon Valley-based legal analytic firm. And 982 of those cases were filed before U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of Marshall, making him the nation’s busiest patent jurist, according to the report. The number of new patent litigation filings in federal district court dipped in the second half of 2014, according to a recent survey. So called “patent trolls” helped make the Eastern District of Texas the top spot for patent litigation in 2014, a recent report found. For the past seven years, the Record has reported on the dozens of patent infringement suits brought by East Texas companies nearly every week in the Marshall and Tyler Divisions of the federal court. On March 26 Lex Machina, a litigation data mining company out of California, released its second annual Patent Litigation Year in Review report, revealing that the Eastern District became home to 1,425 patent suits in 2014, making the region No. 1 for infringement litigation. In the last couple of years, after having already invaded the sports, business, and investing industries–among others–the term “analytics” has entered the jargon of the legal researching world. Next generation interfaces almost universally boast about incorporating analytics, but why would this be beneficial? In the world of legal research, what does the term actually mean? Lex Machina, the legal analytics company changing the way many patent attorneys approach their cases, has launched a new platform, giving trademark and copyright attorneys for the first time the same tools that have benefited patent lawyers. Lex Machina has approximately 57,000 trademark and 49,000 copyright cases in the system. “This is a game changer,” said Lora Moffatt, a partner at Crowell & Moring who was a part of the webinar. “We haven’t had use of these tools before.” Lex Machina announced on March 31 the launch of Legal Analytics for trademark and copyright cases. Besides analyzing patent and antitrust litigation, the software-as-a-service platform now provides subscribers insight into the litigation behavior of district court judges, opposing parties, clients and prospective clients in trademark and copyright litigation. At a public webcast (registration required) announcing the new content and analysis in Legal Analytics, Owen Byrd, chief evangelist and general counsel at Lex Machina, said the company’s software and services enables IP litigators to be “moneyball lawyers.” “Litigation analytics have always been important, and it goes back to the classic principle of ‘know thy enemy,’” says Lisa Launer, associate general counsel responsible for patent litigation for the computer peripherals company. “You used to always go to outside counsel to look up that information for you and it was always surprising how slow and ultimately costly it was. Associates could spend hours researching.” Launer now does much of this in-house in a lot less time using a service called Lex Machina, which she says has changed the landscape. Lex Machina released its second annual Patent Litigation Year in Review Thursday, publishing data that confirms 2014 was a historic year in which the subject of patent litigation and patent reform spread from corporations and law firms to Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Lex Machina’s report shows that the number of new patent cases filed last year fell by 21 percent from 2013. Much of the decrease came in the second half of the year, after the high court issued its decision on patentable subject matter in Alice v. CLS Bank. This was a trend the legal analytics company first identified in a report released last fall. On February 5, 2015, the House Judiciary Chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), flanked by a bipartisan group of his peers, reintroduced his “Innovation Act” (H.R. 9). The bill is the second time in as many years that the Republican-controlled House has introduced legislation aimed at curtailing the excesses of patent protection litigation. The number of new patent lawsuits filed in U.S. courts fell 21 percent in 2014, a year in which the U.S. Supreme Court changed patent law in several significant ways, according to a new study to be released on Thursday. The 2014 Patent Litigation Year in Review, by patent analytics firm Lex Machina, also confirmed Apple Inc’s place as the top target for patent cases, with 58 filed against it in 2014. Law firm Fish & Richardson remained the most active in the patent field with 618 open cases, followed by Russ August & Kabat with 520. Lex Machina’s second annual review of the patent litigation landscape in the US is out today and the IAM blog has had an exclusive preview of what is a very comprehensive piece of work. The main headline figure for last year – that the number of new patent cases fell by more than a thousand – has been known since January. In fact, the downward trend in litigation rates in 2014 first became apparent when Lex Machina reported a big drop year-on-year for September. Peter Neufield is a J.D. student at the Osgoode Hall Law School and the current features editor of the IPOsgoode blog IPilogue. He’s posted a short interview with Owen Byrd, Chief Evangelist & General Counsel at Lex Machina. Lex Machina started life in 2010 as a partnership between Stanford University’s Computer Science Department and the Law School with some great support from a number of tech companies and law firms. Responses to the question “What was the best “new product that you became aware of in 2014?” is remarkable because of the variety of responses.The one feature that is common to many new products is that they are leveraging big data to provide analytic insights. Lex Machina which provides IP litigation analytics got the most votes for best new product. I had the opportunity to speak with Owen Byrd, the Chief Evangelist and General Counsel for the Legal Analytics company Lex Machina. Based in Menlo Park, California, Lex Machina is one of the many legal technology startup companies that has recently sprouted in the Silicon Valley area. As a leader in the intersection of legal analytics and IP law, I wanted to hear Owen’s thoughts on Lex Machina and the recent growth of legal technology startup companies. Here is what he had to say. Law360, Chicago (March 17, 2015, 6:46 PM ET) — When general counsels are in the market for new outside counsel, they start by narrowing down the field based on the usual metrics: expertise, reputation and budget-friendliness. But before making the final call, there are a few additional inquiries they need to make. Here are the five questions experts say GCs should always ask to engage the best outside counsel. Some time ago, a colleague posed an interesting question to me in hopes that Lex Machina’s data might be able to shed some light: Has the kind or size of firms handling patent cases changed much over the last few years? In other words, are companies increasingly choosing smaller, cheaper boutiques, or are they relying more often on “BigLaw” firms? In-house counsel are increasingly turning to smaller law firms when they need outside counsel to handle litigation related to intellectual property. A new study from the legal analytics company Lex Machina shows there has been a decline in the amount of IP defense work handled by Am Law 100 firms in recent years. Non-Am Law 100 firms, meanwhile, have seen a corresponding increase in the percentage of cases they handle, the study found. If there really is a death squad for patents, it may not be found at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A more likely location is the Plano, Texas, office of David O’Dell, chairman of Haynes and Boone’s patent trials practice group. Haynes and Boone has persuaded the PTAB to institute inter partes review in 72 cases—the most for any law firm according to an analysis of Lex Machina’s new PTAB database. One of the main pieces of empirical data being drawn upon by folks arguing for and against various patent law reform proposals is the rate of new patent lawsuit filings. As the intellectual property scholars’ letter to Congress recently observed, while there were fewer patent lawsuits filed last year than in 2013, that year was itself a record-setting year for patent lawsuit filings. Yesterday a group of 51 prominent academics who specialise in the study of intellectual property wrote to members of the US Congress to argue that there is a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating that patent reform is necessary. “Over the last five years,” they state, “academic researchers have published over two dozen empirical studies on patent litigation and its economic impacts … These studies have been conducted by researchers with diverse views and using different methodologies.” Over the past 10 years, companies have moved aggressively to deploy analytics – defined as the discovery and communication of meaningful patterns in data – in order to improve management systems and produce more and better results across departments. What about law departments? How can in-house counsel apply analytics? What data sets are available? How are they best used? A Texas jury decision earlier this week awarding damages of $522 million against Apple for infringement of three patents owned by NPE Smartflash Technologies has rightly attracted a lot of headlines. It might be the world’s biggest company but a decision that could see the Cupertino giant pay out more than half a billion dollars is enough to grab anyone’s attention. As more patent dispute resolution moves to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it’s crucial that attorneys integrate PTAB findings into their litigation and patent portfolio management strategies so they have a complete picture of patent litigation activity. In November when I wrote Lex Machina Provides Bigger Data “Custom Insights Raises the Analytics Bar for IP Litigators it was clear that the product would continue to evolve. Last week Lex Machina added a new “high value” tranche of litigation data from the Patent and Trademark Appeals Board and the International Trade Court. There is an interesting story in Forbes on Lex Machina, a legal start-up that provides analytics for use in patent litigation. What makes Lex Machina so interesting is that the company is not a NewLaw service provider that trying to take marketshare. Instead, Lex Machina is a toolmaker. It is a true Big Data company that provides analytics to (a) value contested patents and (b) protect/maximize that value through a litigation strategy that is informed by data. Lex Machina has published a new piece of analysis on patent litigation rates, which is well worth looking at. It delves deeper into the fall in filing numbers in 2014 and suggests that on a like-for-like basis current rates are similar to those seen five years ago. The study also analyses the impact of post issuance proceedings at the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) and the effect that the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v CLS has had. Just a year ago, I was hearing serious industry commenters refer to the application of analytics and business intelligence (BI) to support legal operations, strategy, and knowledge management as “tinfoil-hat stuff.” I’d argue that this was overly conservative at the time. In retrospect, it looks painfully naïve. The last year saw some significant activity by companies looking to insert machine learning and analytics applications into the legal sector, with these capabilities now representing a major presence at LegalTech. Law360, New York (February 04, 2015, 8:25 PM ET) — A panel of legal department heads from the nation’s top insurance, health care and banking companies delivered a stern warning on Wednesday to Luddite law firms slow to adapt to the analytics-driven future: Get on board with Big Data, or get left behind. A U.S. appeals court upheld rules that make it easier for companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. to get rid of worrisome patent litigation on the cheap. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an appeal involving a patent for a speed limit indicator, took its first look at reviews by the Patent and Trademark Office. The decision Wednesday may benefit many companies not directly in the case by upholding rules that patent owners say make it too easy to get their legal protections tossed and led a former judge to dub the agency board a “death squad” for patents. If you’re being sued for patent infringement before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in the heart of California’s Silicon Valley, there’s something you ought to know. Koh is tough on defendants and only grants 18% of motions for summary judgment, less than half the national average. Legal technology companies are increasingly doing the legwork on matters that young lawyers have traditionally done during their first years at a big firm. Lex Machina, an IP data and analytics company, reported that 441 new patent cases were filed in December, rising 32% from November 2014’s total of 335. This figure was also up 4% from the 423 cases filed in December 2013, making it only the third month of 2014 to have a higher figure than the corresponding month in 2013. Data analytics startup companies are revolutionizing every phase of the intellectual property business. There are dozens of companies, and most overlap to one degree or another, but for this limited space I’ll discuss three. Each represents in its own way the elements of the disruption we are seeing: data aggregation and curation and user generated data. In patent litigation the big news is Menlo Park’s Lex Machina. Their data could impact not only litigation practice and business development, but possibly the scheduling conduct of judges with busy patent litigation dockets. Crystal Ball Award goes to Lex Machina for giving us a glimpse of the predictive uses of big data in anticipating lawyer and judges behavior in IP litigation. As major cost centers, law firm libraries have been under intense pressure to reduce both research and staff resources. But a trend is emerging that is shifting the perception of libraries from book repositories to proactive, sophisticated resource centers for navigating in the increasingly data intensive legal environment. In November, I wrote about a decline in patent suits pending in district court. Using Lex Machina, I recently put together an updated set of data that includes patent cases pending as of December 1 and January 1. Intellectual property expert Mark Lemley talks about the impact of court rulings on software patents and the tech industry’s pressure on Congress for reform. An expert on patent, trade-secret, antitrust, and constitutional law matters, he is one of the true thought leaders in the field of intellectual property, with the vantage point of multiple worlds. As the end of the year rapidly approaches I thought I’d take a look back at some of the momentous events that have shaped the US patent landscape over the last 12 months. With ongoing debate over patent reform, the Supreme Court hearing six patent cases in its last term and what looks like the end of the smartphone litigation wars (or at least the beginning of the end), 2014 has certainly been eventful. The legal profession is rarely seen, at least in the popular imagination, as a cradle of innovation. Lawyers are stodgy risk-averse traditionalists, right? Sure, some probably are—but today, few can comfortably cling to the idea that their world will stay the same for long. Even for lawyers, the question is quickly becoming: Do you want to be one of the disrupters, or one of the disrupted? In these profiles, you’ll meet some of the people in the first category. In tech, it’s common for “cool” consumer facing products to get all the attention (look, drones!). LegalTech is no exception. Some of the most exciting LegalTech startups out there are indeed consumer facing (examples here and here). But while the masses are easily distracted by the “cool” of B2C, the more business minded among us, should take a hard look at the success of B2B LegalTech start-ups like Lex Machina. These days, the ability to conduct legal research is essential for lawyers, regardless of area or type of practice. With traditional legal research tools, it can be very difficult to find relevant cases and uncover key strategic insights, unless lawyers are willing and able to spend their limited time drilling into every single case. Fortunately, legal analytics specialist Lex Machina has recently raised the bar again for legal technology with the introduction of Custom Insights in the new release of its legal analytics platform. Custom Insights helps lawyers quickly and easily get access to strategic information from only the cases or motions they care about. Legal analytics combines data and software to predict the behaviors and outcomes that different legal strategies will produce, enabling companies and their legal counsel to set litigation strategy and budgets and win cases. In this Q&A, Rich Baer, senior vice president and general counsel, Liberty Media; John Squires, partner, Perkins Coie; and Owen Byrd, chief evangelist and general counsel, Lex Machina, discuss the impact of legal analytics on the legal profession and how it can be used to gain an edge in the highly competitive business and practice of law. Today Lex Machina is announcing the launch of “Custom Insights” functionality which will add two new high-voltage analytics tools: Caselist Analyzer and Motion Metrics to the Lex Machina platform. These interactive tools will put customized competitive insights within reach of every subscriber. I found the variety, flexibility and granularity of Lex Machina’s new offerings to be truly “breathtaking.” There is no shortage of products selling Pacer dockets. Most are selling access to flat data, not a transformative platform for insights and iterative analysis.Lex Machina which focuses on IP litigation is about to raise the competitive stakes for lawyers and Lex Machina’s competitors in the docket analytics space. 3 Geeks and a Law Blog There are very few legal research and analytic platforms that are truly unique, ground-breaking, advantage-giving resources. One of the newer products out there that does seem to fit this category is Lex Machina. it is one of the few products where I’ve heard lawyers from multiple firms say it is a “must have” as part of their IP litigation arsenal. In fact, when talking with an IP Lawyer at a conference once, that lawyer said “I was tired of getting my ___ kicked by a firm that was using it, so we had to bring it into our firm to level the playing field.” Lex Machina, a provider of intellectual property litigation data analytics, introduced two new improvements to its Legal Analytics platform that lets lawyers surface litigation data specific to a set of cases, besides the data analytics focused on courts and judges. The new Case List Analyzer and Motion Metrics features are “Custom Insights” in the Legal Analytics platform. The new features allow users to analyze cases and motions of interest. The Case List Analyzer helps users select a list of patent cases by case type, date range, court, judge and more. With the case list in view, the CLA lays out the cases in four drill-down tabs: Summary, Timing, Patent Case Damages and Patent Case Resolutions. To see a time-frame for a list of cases, click on Timing and review case statuses such as Termination, Trial and Claim Construction Hearing and review the time to engage and complete those statuses or determinations in a neat time line. Lex Machina does one thing and does it well. The legal analytics company provides data about patent litigation, mining thousands of documents to put together real, actionable data for in-house and firm lawyers. Often, lead data scientist Brian Howard, who is also the director of custom services, gets requests from clients to crunch very specific sets of numbers. Over the past few months, I have heard numerous comments from folks about the perception that patents – or at least, enforcement of patents – is in decline. Case filings tend to be highly stochastic, however, and a case that’s filed one day could be terminated the next or live on for quite a while. To take another look at the state of patent litigation, I wanted to see whether there are changes in numbers of pending cases. The number of patent lawsuits filed over generic drug challenges has spiked this year, a development that coincides with the widely anticipated “patent cliff” of many brand drugs losing protection. This year has already seen 323 cases as of September, according to legal analytics firm Lex Machina. By contrast, between 2009 and 2013, ANDA patent cases remained relatively steady, ranging between 239 and 293 a year, the study found. As the legal market rebounds we are seeing an increasing demand for lateral attorneys in most practice areas. Four practices in particular stand out: real estate, corporate M&A, IP litigation, and private equity. These practices are one of the few that have increased their headcount over the least year and/or have been ahead of the pack in lateral reshufflings. Lex Machina, a commercial venture spinning out of the “quantitative statistics” trend in patent scholarship popularized by Mark Lemley, Kimberly Moore, David Schwartz, and others, has released a Report on ANDA litigation that provides a slew of statistics ripe for interpretation (or at least speculation). Over the past decade, generic drug makers have benefited tremendously from the so-called patent cliff, which is shorthand for the spate of big-selling, brand-name medicines that began to lose patent protection. This translated into one golden opportunity after another for the generic pharmaceutical industry, which continues to ring registers with lower-cost, copycat versions. Lex Machina, the legal data analytics firm, has compiled the “Hatch-Waxman/ANDA Litigation Report” on 1,671 cases filed from 2009 through September, involving more than 1,100 patents and more than 400 applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The report found that litigation involving abbreviated new-drug applications has been increasing since 2012, with 2014 likely to be “a record year,” according to a statement from the firm. The many patent cliffs seem to have emboldened generic drugmakers: Pharma patent litigation is on the rise, particularly when it comes to newer IP – 2014 was a record year for ANDA suits, according to a new report from Menlo Park legal analytics firm Lex Machina. The firm looked at 1,100 patents and 300 FDA applications. A total of 6,092 new patent lawsuits were filed in 2013, compared with 5,418 new cases filed in 2012, according to Lex Machina’s 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review. Most of them were filed in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. Not surprisingly, nonpracticing entities, otherwise known as “patent trolls,” were a major factor in those cases, filing 67 percent of all new patent infringement lawsuits in 2013. Technology companies have been the target of fewer patent lawsuits since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and new government polices made it less profitable for licensing firms that create no products to file questionable cases against those that do. The Stanford event attracted 173 registrants: about one-third law students; over 30 attorneys plus other entrepreneurs and companies; and even one of LegalZoom’s founders was in attendance. Dr. Roland Vogl, CodeX Executive Director kicked off the evening by joking that we were about to have a Legal Tech Shark Tank. We first heard from Lex Machina’s Owen Byrd. He inspired the crowd with the company’s journey: from Stanford beginnings as a public interest project to venture-backed success as leading intellectual property (IP) analytics provider for firms and companies to win cases and close deals. For two decades, companies that buy software patents to sue technology giants have been the scourge of Silicon Valley. Reviled as patent trolls, they have attacked everything from Google’s online ads to Apple’s iPhone features, sometimes winning hundreds of millions of dollars. But now the trolls are in retreat from the tech titans, interviews and data reviewed by Reuters show. Companies facing new litigation often seek proposals from several law firms before deciding which lawyers and which law firm to represent them in a particular case. Often, the company is unfamiliar with at least one of the law firms doing the bidding. In the future, savvy inside counsel will correlate litigation data with billing data to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of existing outside counsel. First, the Lex Machina product is a truly awesome example of turning Big Data into a useful, user-friendly legal analytics product. The depth and breadth of data contained in the site, particularly for patent law, was astounding. For example, pick any federal district judge and within a few seconds the site provides an array of data, including outcomes at granular levels, patents handled, time to case termination, lawyers appearing in the court, and many more. The site display and navigation is a breeze. We’ve been writing a lot about how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank had resulted in the courts rapidly invalidating a bunch of crappy software patents, and that may be taking a toll. Legal analytics firm Lex Machina has been crunching the numbers and noticed a significant and noticeable drop off in September patent lawsuit filings. Historically, there’s usually a summer lull in patent lawsuit filings, but they pick back up in September (back to school patent trolling!). More recently Lex Machina has come forward with some eye opening statistics as well. A recent report from Lex Machina concludes: “Plaintiffs filed 329 new federal patent cases in September 2014, a 40% decrease from the 549 cases filed in September 2013.” Indeed, if you dive deeper into the 2013 and 2014 statistics you see that through the first nine months of 2013 there were 4,548 patent infringement lawsuits filed, but during the first nine months of 2014 there were only 3,887 patent infringement lawsuits filed, which represents a 15% reduction in patent litigation in 2014 compared with 2013. Stanford law professor Mark Lemley teaches Introduction to Patent Law in the spring. When his students returned to school this fall, he told them, “Welcome back. Everything’s changed since you’ve been gone.” Patent law is evolving at an accelerated pace, driven in part by new procedures at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for reviewing patent validity and the U.S. Supreme Court’s expanded standard for fee shifting. But nothing seems to have caused as much abrupt, far-reaching change as the high court’s June decision on patent eligibility, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. According to a Lex Machina blog post, plaintiffs filed 329 new federal patent cases in September 2014, down from 549 cases filed in the same month last year. This does not seem a one-month anomaly. Filings over the past five months have dwindled after a reaching a record high in April 2014. In a June decision called CLS Bank v. Alice, the Supreme Court called into question the validity of many software patents. Since then, there have been over a dozen lower-court decisions invalidating software patents. New data from the legal analytics firm Lex Machina suggests that the newfound judicial hostility toward software patents is making plaintiffs gun-shy. Yesterday the legal analytics company Lex Machina released its latest analysis of patent infringement litigation. This revealed that the number of cases filed in September was down 40% year-on-year. As luck would have it, IAM has been in Silicon Valley this week and was able to catch up with Lex Machina founder Professor Mark Lemley at Stanford University Law School. Law360, New York (October 08, 2014, 6:31 PM ET) — The number of new patent cases filed in federal court dropped by 40 percent this September in comparison with last year, the legal analytics firm Lex Machina reported Wednesday, perhaps demonstrating the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Alice Corp. After reaching record highs earlier in the year, patent case filings over the last few months have trailed off significantly, contradicting a commonly held perception that patent litigation is on the rise. The legal analytics company Lex Machina said Wednesday that plaintiffs filed 329 new federal patent cases in September 2014, a 40 percent decrease from the 549 cases filed in September 2013. Lex Machina, a provider of legal analytics from publicly available data sources, announced on Sept. 23 a new service for the pharmaceutical industry. The new service allows drug patent holders and generic drug manufacturers and their counsel to use the company’s data analytics to decide about case strategy and litigation tactics around the 1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Restoration Act, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act. Calif. Patent trolls, which have helped to keep the United States in the economic doldrums, are finally being brought to heel by anti-patent groups and court cases. The Open Invention Network (OIN), whose members include Google, IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat, and Sony, now has more than a thousand licensees in its Linux and open-source, defensive patent pool. When Lex Machina first came out it provided easy-to-view analytics related to how judges and courts typically ruled on motions over a long period of time. This year, Lex Machina has outdone itself, in allowing the very thing that ANDA lawyers desired all along – topic-specific searching. For those of you that do ANDA litigation, as well as other types of patent litigation, you know that ANDA litigation is very different. Since the country’s top court struck down patents on a computer program that reduces risk in financial transactions, federal trial courts have rejected software patents in nine cases, according to Lex Machina, which supplies patent data to lawyers. The recent string of decisions invalidating software patents on subject-matter grounds is unprecedented. This chart, based on data from Lex Machina, shows the number of subject-matter decisions the courts made between 2007 and 2013: East Texas continues to reign nationally as the undisputed king of patent litigation, despite efforts by Congress and the appellate courts to dethrone it. The number of new patent infringement lawsuits filed in the federal courts in Marshall, Tyler and the other federal district courts in the Eastern District of Texas hit another record high during the first six months of 2014. A review of 36,000 completed patent cases filed nationwide between 2000 and 2013 found that plaintiffs in East Texas lose just as often as they win. A combination of a change in patent law and an increase in high-volume plaintiffs have caused a surge in patent litigation, a recent survey found. California-based Lex Machina, a now-private company initially set up by experts at Stanford University’s computer science department and law school, released its first Patent Litigation Year in Review report in May. When I started covering technology in the ’80s, the last thing I thought I’d need to learn about was intellectual property law. But as Nicolai Tesla learned in his fight with Thomas Edison in the electrical-current patent wars of the 1890s, wherever technology goes, IP law is sure to follow. Lex Machina, an IP analysis company, reported in its 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review paper, that there were “6,092 new patent cases in U.S. District Courts in 2013, compared to 5,418 new cases filed in 2012.” That’s a 12.4% increase. Technology may come to the rescue, with software and services that automate tasks that free young associates to do other work. For example, Blackstone Discovery offers document review, and Lex Machina manipulates big data to do things humans have never done, like sorting through thousands of patent cases to suggest which strategies might prove successful. A new analysis from Lex Machina underlines this point. Following up on its Patent Litigation Year in Review report released in May – which revealed that the number of patent litigation cases was up 12.4% in 2013 – the legal analytics firm has delved deeper into its figures to work out what is driving them. The report from Silicon Valley’s Lex Machina looked at nearly 14 years of patent filings across the country. The report stressed the unlikely chances of winning a compensatory damage recovery in a patent case; of the 36,629 patent cases filed and terminated from 2000 until 2013, only 708 of them (less than 2 percent) resulted in compensatory damage awards. There’s a scene in the movie “Moneyball” where a group of old baseball scouts sit around a table and analyze young players. Among the list of attributes they cite: a “classy” swing, a “good clean stroke” and passing the “eye candy” test. One scout says the attractiveness of a player’s girlfriend is an indicator of his confidence. The scene ends with Billy Beane, the Oakland A’s general manager played by Brad Pitt, telling his scouts that instead of “looking for Fabio,” they need to use new information — analytics — to better allocate resources and get results on the field. A growing number of businesses want to make a similar shake-up in general counsels’ offices. The largest intellectual property verdicts of 2014 so far include six that exceeded $100 million in damages, continuing a trend in recent years of juries increasingly awarding substantial sums in high-stakes patent litigation, experts say. Law360 compiled a list of all the intellectual property verdicts this year that exceeded $50 million and the firms that led that charge for the winning side. In order to both help Washington’s lawyers see and understand the changing landscape of legal technology and to aid in efforts to stay competent, quick descriptions below provide examples of legal technology companies and tools. The examples are grouped into three categories: tools and companies to know about, companies and tools to watch, and legal technology companies to follow whose tools currently are currently under development in Washington state. Patent litigation: There’s a lot of it, but not all of it is created equal. So says the “Patent Litigation Damages Report,” the first edition of a study that Menlo Park, Calif.-based legal analytics company Lex Machina released Wednesday. Data presented Tuesday by analytics firm Lex Machina show that some $15 billion in patent damages have been awarded in U.S. courts over the last 14 years. The 10 largest awards, including three for $1 billion or more, account for nearly half that amount. But the median compensatory award was around $400,000, far less than the typical cost of litigating a patent case to verdict. Despite the headline-grabbing awards in patent infringement cases, recoveries actually have been fairly few and far between and, for the most part, not that big, according to a first-of-its-kind study released on Wednesday. Lex Machina, a legal analytics firm in Menlo Park, Calif., found that compensatory damages were awarded in fewer than 2 percent of patent infringement cases during the past 14 years. Of those, 90 percent came to $25.4 million or less, with the median award totaling $372,000. Data presented Tuesday by analytics firm Lex Machina show that some $15 billion in patent damages have been awarded in U.S. courts over the last 14 years. The 10 largest awards, including three for $1 billion or more, account for nearly half that amount. But the median compensatory award was around $400,000, far less than the typical cost of litigating a patent case to verdict. In advance of his presentation next week I reached out to Lemley to discuss what is going on and what accounts for the rise in patent damages observed in the Lex Machina report that will be released in conjunction with the panel discussion. I reached him yesterday at his office, and our conversation lasted approximately 30 minutes. The rise in patent applications has accelerated in recent years — and isn’t necessarily because of increased innovation. Patent law has come to the forefront as so-called patent trolls have increased litigation and as the Supreme Court considers whether software — a huge issue for Silicon Valley — can be patented or not. Today, the Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling in a web technology patent case that will make it harder for companies to sue rivals for encouraging patent infringement. Patent litigation abuse is rampant and it’s getting worse. According to the first annual “2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review,” by the respected legal data analytics firm Lex Machina, patent cases hit record levels last year with 6,092 such lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts, a 12.4 percent increase over 2012. Meanwhile, the average damages awarded increased by 28 percent to $34.7 million. Late last year, the House of Representatives passed new patent reform legislation just two years after the 2011 America Invents Act became law. The House bill is now stalled in the Senate, but the fact that the issue is back on the agenda already is a sign of just how concerned people are about patent litigation. That’s not a surprise. Statistics from Lex Machina show that 2013 set a new record for new patent lawsuits. States are rewriting their laws to make it more difficult for so-called “patent trolls” to pursue small businesses over questionable patent claims. At issue are patent claims made by companies that don’t produce any goods or services, but instead purchase patents and then seek profit from them. The total number of lawsuits alleging patent claims rose 12.4% to 6,092 in 2013, according to Lex Machina, a legal analytics company. The patent war of attrition between Apple and Samsung may come across like the singular struggle over tech innovation, but court fights about intellectual property are a regular part of life in the tech industry. Fun facts from Lex Machina’s 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review. A record 6,092 new patent cases were filed in U.S. District Courts, up 12.4% from 2012. As usual, the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas got more than its share: 1,495, up 20%. Big data meets patent litigation in legal analytics firm Lex Machina’s report about 2013 in review. The report, which was released earlier this week, trots out interesting, though unsurprising, statistics. The number of lawsuits jumped 12.4 percent over 2012, which saw 5,418 new cases filed. That’s the largest number of lawsuits ever filed in a year, but some of that rise is due to rule changes about how many defendants can be in a single lawsuit. Of the 6,092 patent-infringement suits filed, 10 companies — all patent-licensing firms — were responsible for almost 13 percent, according to a report today from Lex Machina, a Menlo Park, California-based legal analysis company. Three of those companies filed more than 100 lawsuits each. “Patent litigation continues to increase and the increase is being driven by plaintiffs that are very involved in litigation,” said Owen Byrd, general counsel at litigation analysis company Lex Machina. The number of new patent infringement lawsuits in the United States rose more than 10 percent to 6,092 in 2013 despite a 2011 law specifically aimed at reducing patent litigation, according to experts at the analytics group Lex Machina. Lex Machina, a provider of patent litigation data and analytics, released “Lex Machina 2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review” today. The free report is the first of a series of annual reports on U.S. patent litigation, according to Owen Byrd the company’s chief evangelist and general counsel. The number of patent suits filed in district courts continued to rise in 2013 and has more than doubled in the past five years, according to the first-ever patent litigation year in review published by the legal analytics company Lex Machina. A report released Tuesday naming the most frequent plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases reveals that the battle lines are starkly drawn: the companies that filed the most suits in 2013 were nonpracticing entities, and those sued most often were technology companies. Data presented in a report released this morning by Lex Machina, the legal analytics firm based in Silicon Valley, indicate that businesses that sell products are much more likely to be involved in active patent litigation than so-called patent “trolls.” It’s no secret that investment money is flowing into law. In February, an article on the website of Tech Cocktail, a media company covering startups, crowed that “roughly $458 million was invested into legal startups in the last year by investors. “When I started in 2011—we raised our first round in the beginning of 2012—you had very few venture capitalists that had ever invested in the legal space,” says Becker, who was once a venture capitalist himself. “It was very much an area that wasn’t on the radar screen with VCs. There was a lot of skepticism.” April 11, 2014 A task legion to intellectual property lawyers is how to develop a litigation strategy that factors in all the complexity of a typical IP case, including current trends in specific jurisdictions and general leadings of jurists. Enter data analysis tools such as Lex Machina (lexmachina.com) that help lawyers craft a successful plan and perhaps even forecast the case result—no longer via a wing and a prayer, but by the numbers. Big data has sparked a revolution in how corporate America conducts research, identifies customers, advertises itself, and pursues profits. Obwohl es um riesige Summen geht, mussten sich Unternehmen bislang bei der Wahl ihrer Rechtsbeistände auf deren Ruf oder auf Empfehlungen verlassen. Eine auf Künstlicher Intelligenz basierende Software soll für diese Entscheidung objektive Kriterien nutzen. Lex Machina heißt das Programm, so wie die Firma, die dahinter steckt. Yesterday, the United States Patent office simplified the investigation process for victims of patent trolls such as O’Connor. As part of President Obama’s initiatives against patent reform, the White House launched an online toolkit to help entrepreneurs deal with demand letters. Lex Machina has announced that its technology will be used to complement the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new online toolkit, which provides free, public information about demand letters to businesses and consumers. Lex Machina tool checks claims made in patent troll demands, returning details about law firms and companies in question. To help protect consumers and small retailers from deceptive and abusive patent litigation tactics, the PTO announced the launch of an online toolkit that will provide information about patent suits and details about specific patents. Included in that toolkit are outside resources that consumers can use free of charge. One of these is designed by Lex Machina, the legal analytics company that grew out of Stanford University’s computer science department and law school. The PTO issued 302,948 patents last year and receives more than 500,000 new applications annually. The White House initiative focuses on reducing the number of patents of questionable validity and providing practical advice to the public. In addition to basic information, the website provides a database that can help the letter recipients learn more about the patent owners. All three branches of government are trying to fix America’s broken patent system. Today, the White House unveiled a series of new measures that will help — though not enough. Over the past few years, awards of attorney fees for bad litigation behavior were fairly insignificant; Lex Machina data shows that there were only six cases in the last three years. Lex Machina, which provides legal analytics to companies and law firms, said in its Tuesday blog post that the 322 new patent cases filed in January 2014 was the lowest since October 2011, when only 316 new patent cases were filed. Total monthly filings of new patent cases in U.S. district courts have hit their lowest level in more than two years, according to data from legal analytics company Lex Machina. Gigaom, December 31, 2013 Lawsuits generate a lot of documents, but the data they contain isn’t valuable only for its use as evidence. Lex Machina is a startup that aims to give intellectual property attorneys statistical data that could help them make better decisions about their cases. Attorneys don’t have to rely solely on what Lex Machina CEO Josh Becker calls “anecdata” — you know, statements like “This judge is tough on defendants”. The Hill, December 23, 2013 Somewhat late to the dance, the US legal system is finally meeting information technology. And Josh Becker has made sure there is a “law machine” ready to take patent proceedings into the 21stCentury. Becker, a successful VC and tech pro in Silicon Valley, is CEO of fast-growing Lex Machina (latin for “law machine”) to collect and analyze millions of documents produced by the US courts. This vast database was created with the public interest in mind. Inside Counsel, December 12, 2013 The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and Lex Machina, a leader in legal analytics, have joined forces to empower intellectual professionals with cutting edge data on trademarks, copyrights and other pertinent information and insights for stronger strategies and decisions. According to Lex Machina, AIPLA staff will use Lex Machina’s Legal Analytics to better supplement their ongoing debates and discussions with thought leaders about the future of IP. Forbes, December 5, 2013 Typically, court cases, such as this one, can drag on for several years. This case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a region that has been a reputation for being overwhelmingly plaintiff-friendly. Based on numbers provided to me by Josh Becker, chief executive officer at Lex Machina, a legal analytics startup, the reality seems much more nuanced, however. Based on Lex Machina’s analysis, about fifty percent of patent cases filed in the Easter District of Texas have resolved favorably to the defendant. That is a fairly reasonable number for a district that has been anointed a plaintiff friendly. The Recorder, November 22, 2013 The new wave of startups share a broad interest in making legal information more open and transparent. “Conditions in the legal information and technology markets are perfect for start-up market disruptors that are not held back by old coding languages, expensive pricing structures and large overheads,” said Hugh Logue, an analyst who covers legal research and publishing at research and advisory firm Outsell Inc. Legal Week, November 15, 2013 Law firms are increasingly turning to big data to extract more value from the thousands of briefs, memos, pleadings and legal records they produce every day, allowing them to develop a more joined-up approach between research, case workflow, pitch preparation and sales. But by changing the way they do business, law firms are also exposing themselves to a new set of threats and opportunities. Corporate Counsel, November 5, 2013 Companies that analyze legal data are slowly changing the face of patent litigation. Analytics are giving lawyers tools to make decisions that can help them extract trends, predict behavior and strategize based on previous outcomes. In-house counsel can use analytics to figure out, for example, which attorney or law firm has the best track record in defending against biotechnology-related infringement claims. Lawyers can examine a particular judge’s rulings on cases involving “patent trolls” and find consistencies. Attorneys can discover which companies tend to go to trial and which generally settle. SAP, November 4, 2013 “Siri, I’m being sued. What are my odds of winning?” That question may sound like a sci-fi scenario, but the technology is closer than you think. Lex Machina is a start-up that bills itself as “Moneyball for law.” Or, as the start-up’s sales and marketing director Owen Byrd says, “It’s an attempt to move beyond the traditional activities of legal research and legal reasoning.” IEEE Spectrum, October 30, 2013 In a low-rise building in Menlo Park, Calif., just upstairs from a Mexican restaurant and a nail salon, a Stanford University spin-off is crunching data in ways that could shake the foundations of the legal profession. Lex Machina is in the vanguard of an emerging field known as legal analytics, according to Daniel Martin Katz, an associate professor of law at Michigan State University. Forbes, October 29, 2013 Lex Machina is a decision support system… This means that you can enter queries analogous to specific questions and the system searches out the answer from its database. Data from the solution can also serve as an important indicator for the odds of settling a case with minimal damage. For example, based on data from past precedents, a lawyer can optimize the time and settlement of a patent case. Inside Counsel, October 29, 2013 Until recently, there had been a glaring lack of a solution that could provide lawyers with actionable data to help prepare for an intellectual property case. The software-as-a-service solution is Web-based and optimized for patent information, while still giving data on trademarks, copyrights and antitrust cases. It features a personalized landing page for each user and boasts easy-to-use tabs that allow for simple navigation. Lex Machina also boasts a patent similarity engine as one of its “patent powertools,” as Becker describes them. The Recorder, September 30, 2013 The map of patent litigation is shifting, and the Northern District of California is gaining ground. A confluence of legislative reform and new case law has made it easier for companies slapped with patent infringement suits to get out of the sticky Eastern District of Texas. Many of them are taking their cases out West. More than a quarter of all patent cases that have been transferred so far in 2013 landed in the Northern District of California, and 36 percent were sent to federal courts statewide, according to The Recorder’s analysis of IP litigation data compiled by Lex Machina. Just this month, Google, Apple, Twitter and Facebook each yanked suits back to the Bay Area, seizing the chance to wage IP battles on their home turf. Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2013 “For instance, a lawyer trying to decide where to file a lawsuit could rely on her personal experience, or ask colleagues what forum might be most favorable to her client’s case. A more effective strategy, the paper suggests, would be to aggregate historical legal data and look at the trends and patterns that emerge. And getting the information is easier than it used to be, thanks to data-sourcing companies such as Palo Alto’s Lex Machina, which cranks out data on likely outcomes in intellectual property cases.” LA Times, August 26, 2013 The real focus, the report says, is the quality of patents. Software patents account for 89% of patent litigation. The problem is that many patents are too vague or broad, essentially opening the door to endless litigation. “The report says the focus on the identity of the litigant rather than the type of patent may be misplaced,” said Owen Byrd, general counsel of Lex Machina, the Menlo Park firm that provided much of the data for the GAO report. “That’s additional fresh thinking.” The GAO suggests that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office find ways to mine the data from patent litigation as it considers new patent applications. Bloomberg BNA, August 23, 2013 The Government Accountability Office finally issued its report, mandated by the America Invents Act, on the extent of problems related to the increase in patent infringement litigation attributable to non- practicing entities, sometimes referred to as patent trolls. “Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality,” published on Aug. 22, concludes, though, that “the focus on the identity of the litigant—rather than the type of patent may be misplaced.” Law 360, August 22, 2013 The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s recommendation Thursday that improving patent quality will rein in litigation by so-called patent trolls drew praise from some attorneys but dismayed others who had hoped the office would call for more sweeping reform. Owen Byrd, general counsel for the IP analytics firm Lex Machina, which provided the data the GAO used in the report, said that it correctly found that policymakers should consider patent quality, in addition to the identity of patent plaintiffs, when making changes to the patent system. Stanford Lawyer, July 1, 2013 So Lemley decided to create a database with reliable information about IP lawsuits—because there wasn’t one. He started the Stanford Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse (IPLC) as an academic research project to map every electronically available patent litigation event and outcome, aiming to bring openness and transparency to IP law and better inform future policy. Modeled on the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, which was started by Joseph Grundfest, JD ’78, W. A. Franke Professor of Law and Business, and with the expert help of CodeX, IPLC became a sophisticated database. And Lemley soon realized it would require significant management to continue. We started this in 2006, and the database has now got upwards of 150,000 cases. So managing all of those cases and all of the docket information in them clearly couldn’t be done by hiring a couple of interns,” says Lemley. So the project was launched as a separate legal technology company in late 2008 with outside investment. Today, it is a thriving company called Lex Machina, Inc. San Francisco Business Times, May 31, 2013 Lex Machina, a Data-sorting company for intellectual property law, continues to be a hit with investors. The Palo Alto firm has closed a $4.8 million funding round led by Boston-based Cue Ball Capital and including existing investors XSeed Capital, Costanoa Venture Capital and Yahoo Inc. co-founder Jerry Yang. Law Technology News, May 21, 2013 Stanford University is a legendary breeding ground for startups — Silicon Valley giants Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., and Cisco Systems Inc. all came out of the Palo Alto, Calif., institution’s computer science and engineering departments. Now, Stanford Law School is getting in on the action. In the last four years, the school has become a hotbed of entrepreneurship in the field of legal technology. Since 2009, at least five startups have spun out of the school. The first was Lex Machina, a company that maps electronically available patent litigation events and outcomes to build a litigation database. The Recorder, May 1, 2013 The Palo Alto-based startup said Wednesday that it raised $4.8 million in a Series A venture round from new investors Cue Ball Capital and former Thomson Reuters Corp. executive Roy Martin Jr., along with existing investors Jerry Yang, the Yahoo Inc. founder, and XSeed Capital. Richard Harrington, who heads Boston-based Cue Ball, was previously the CEO of Thomson Reuters, which owns the legal information service Westlaw. Martin, the other new investor and now board member, was chief strategy officer for Thomson’s global legal and regulatory group and most recently CEO of the tax and accounting division. Tech Crunch, May 1, 2013 One of the fundamental problems in intellectual property (IP) litigation is the lack of information available to both plaintiffs and defendants. The identity of the plaintiff and the defendant, the district(s), judge(s), and lawyers involved in a particular case, have a significant impact on the outcome of a litigation, including whether a particular litigation will proceed at all. While legal professionals have anecdotal and scholarly information on individual districts and judges, granular data on lawyers, courts, judges, and districts can be invaluable in litigation decision making. Lex Machina , which just announced that it has raised a $4.8 million Series A funding round led by Boston-based Cue Ball Capital, aims to provide this information. As the number of lawsuits and verdict amounts increase to all-time highs, the information is becoming increasingly valuable. The company claims that total patent litigation cases filed have increased more than 100 percent in the last three years, and three verdicts over $1 billion for patent infringement have been awarded in the last eight months, while median damages awards in patent cases now exceed $4 million. Existing investors XSeed Capital, Costanoa Venture Capital, and Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang also participated in the round. According to Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina, Cue Ball found Lex Machina through AngelList. Silicon Valley Business Journal, May 1, 2013 Lex Machina, the Big Data startup that hatched out of a Stanford Law project, said on Wednesday it raised $4.8 million in a Series A funding round. The funding round led by Boston-based Cue Ball Capital, included existing investors XSeed Capital, Costanoa Venture Capital and Yahoo Inc. co-founder Jerry Yang. ABA Journal, April 29, 2013 Meanwhile, Lex Machina, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based big-data firm, offers to do for patent lawyers what MedMal Navigator does for malpractice: Predict case outcomes. Every day the Web-based service crawls the Internet for data from all known, reliable sources of patent law information and auto-loads it into a master database. Once all the data is correlated, the service makes predictions on how a new patent case will fare by weighing a number of variables, including the kind of intellectual property involved and the ruling history of the judge the attorney will likely be facing. (The firm did not respond to calls seeking pricing information for this service.) “To create the most powerful litigation strategy, we use both experience and big data,” says Lex Machina user Vicki Veenker, a Palo Alto solo practitioner. “Lex Machina allows a litigator to access a lot of data beyond what any team would likely know—for example, on a given judge or district or litigation history of a patent. But the litigator’s experience and skill dictates what to look for and how to interpret the data. Lex Machina is an unprecedented tool for litigators that informs a litigator’s decisions, but the litigator must make the decisions.” Daily Journal, April 17, 2013 Since the America Invents Act was signed into law in 2011, attorneys have been adapting their practices, dealing with new rules for filing patents while adjusting to updated procedures for infringement lawsuits. But with results starting to trickle in from some of the patent reform laws earlier provisions, most attorneys are skeptical the touted law is doing much to dramatically change how patents are litigated and challenged. The final phase of the law took effect just a month ago, but already attorneys say that while one key provision may significantly alter litigation strategy, another has failed to make much of a dent in the old system at all. Another Word For It, February 10, 2013 Lex Machina does not: Instead, Lex Machina chose a finite legal domain, patents, that has a finite vocabulary and range of data sources. Working in that finite domain, Lex Machina has produced a high quality data product of interest to legal professions and lay persons alike. Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2013 Congress and the federal courts have largely failed to stem a wave of patent lawsuits that has roiled the technology industry. The proportion of patent lawsuits filed by PAEs grew to 40% in 2011 from 22% in 2007, according to Lex Machina, an intellectual-property litigation, data and analytics company. Patent experts and lawyers watched the Cisco-Innovatio case closely, partly because large companies have rarely attempted to hold PAEs liable for their behavior. Rather, Cisco and other companies in their battle against PAEs have chosen to defend themselves when named as defendants or to pre-emptively ask a judge to declare either that a particular patent is invalid or that no infringement took place. IPKat, February 1, 2013 “Did you ever hear of Lex Machina?”, asked the IPKat’s old friend Steve Getzoff (Reed Smith LLP). “No”, said the Kat, but he can now tell you something about it. As Steve explains, “Lex Machina has developed a more sophisticated way to do IP legal research using advanced search techniques. The technology was developed at Stanford and utilizes so-called machine learning (the same field of computing research that used to be known as artificial intelligence) to provide methods of discovering relevant information and relating it to a legal question. They are currently focused on the patent and trade mark area”. If you’d like to know a bit more, you can easily find out yourself by visiting Lex Machina here. Total Telecom, January 30, 2013 An analysis by intellectual-property litigation data firm Lex Machina suggests the strength of Google’s standard-essential patents have prompted rivals including Microsoft to preemptively file legal claims in the past.
Moneyball Legal Analytics Now Online for Commercial Litigators
June 21, 2017
Legal Analytics enables attorneys to make data-driven decisions. Its Moneyball for lawyers.
Lex Machina Announces Commercial Litigation as Next Rollout in Analytics Platform Expansion
June 21, 2017
Lex Machina Expands Legal Analytics Platform to Commercial Litigation
June 21, 2017
Lex Machina Marks Timely Addition of Commercial Case Analytics
June 20, 2017
Lex Machina Extends Legal Analytics Platform to Commercial Litigation
June 20, 2017
Lex Machina Expands Its Legal Analytics Into Commercial Litigation
June 20, 2017
Lex Machina “DeCodes” Commercial Litigation: Launches Latest Analytics Insights into Business Torts and Contract Litigation
June 20, 2017
These 3 IP Boutiques Still Reign at Patent Trial and Appeal Board
June 15, 2017
These Firms Handled The Most AIA Reviews Last Year
June 15, 2017
As PTAB Nears Its Fifth Birthday the “Death Squads” Have More Than Just NPEs in Their Sights
June 15, 2017
Are More Than 90 Percent of Patents Challenged at the PTAB Defective?
June 14, 2017
Legal Analytics vs. Legal Research: What’s the Difference?
June 12, 2017
Predictive Justice: When Algorithms Pervade the Law
June 9, 2017
Lex Machina’s Online Tools Can Help Patent Owners Spot Conflicts of Interest at PTAB
May 10, 2017
Phila. Law Firms Among Most Active for New Drug Lawsuits
May 10, 2017
Lex Machina ANDA Litigation Report Shows Recent Decline in Case Filings and Top Parties in Filings
May 8, 2017
Artificial Intelligence Closes in on the Work of Junior Lawyers
May 4, 2017
Let Me Introduce You to Three Robot Lawyers
May 4, 2017
Machine Arbitrator: Are We Ready?
May 4, 2017
How to Leverage Task-Based Legal Work to Improve Value, Efficiency and Outcomes
May 1, 2017
Lex Machina Reports That Q1 2017 Saw Fewest Patent Infringement Cases Since Q3 2011
April 30, 2017
Generic Drug Patent Cases Fell By One-Third In 2016: Report
April 27, 2017
ANDA Case Filings Drop 32%, But Still High Compared To Last Decade
April 27, 2017
Warning that Artificial Intelligence has Legal Implications
April 25, 2017
Is Artificial Intelligence Making Lawyers a Disappearing Profession?
April 25, 2017
The Patent Litigation Lie
April 13, 2017
A Supreme Court Case Involving Artificial Sweeteners Could Have a Huge Impact on Silicon Valley
April 4, 2017
LexisNexis Announces First Legal Tech Accelerator Participants
April 4, 2017
Life in the Startup Lane: LexisNexis Accelerator Selects 5 Companies for Mentorship
April 3, 2017
LexisNexis Chooses TagDox Among Start-ups for Legal Tech Accelerator
March 31, 2017
Artificial Intelligence Meets the Mainstream
March 30, 2017
Texas in the Rearview Mirror?
March 27, 2017
Hard Times For Patent Trolls And Challengers As Courts, Targets Fight Back
March 24, 2017
High-Court Case to Challenge Jurisdiction ‘Shopping’ in Patent Suits
March 23, 2017
The Supreme Court Could Fundamentally Change America’s Broken Patent System
March 23, 2017
The Lex Machina Story: From Start-Up to LexisNexis
March 21, 2017
A.I. Is Doing Legal Work. But It Won’t Replace Lawyers, Yet.
March 19, 2017
Rise of the Robolawyers
March 16, 2017
The Firms That Handle The Most Securities Litigation
March 16, 2017
Securities Litigation Up 23% in 2016: Insights from Lex Machina’s First Securities Litigation in Review Report
March 16, 2017
AIA has Not Significantly Altered Patent Litigation Totals According to Recent Lex Machina Report
March 13, 2017
These Firms Handled The Most Patent Cases In 2016
March 3, 2017
Software Patents Fight Back in the US as Federal Circuit Decisions Begin to Influence Lower Courts
March 3, 2017
Eastern Texas Still Patent Case Champ, According to Lex Machina Data
March 2, 2017
Today Lex Machina is Releasing its 4th Annual Patent Litigation Year in Review Report and Offering a Webex to Review the Report
March 2, 2017
Even as IP Filings Drop, Eastern District’s Rodney Gilstrap Is Still America’s Most Popular Patent Judge
March 2, 2017
Lex Machina’s Patent Litigation Year in Review: 22% Decline in Patent Filings
March 2, 2017
Copyright Litigation in 2016 saw Rise in Textile Plaintiffs, Decline in File Sharing Cases
February 15, 2017
Legal Research’s Easy Button Moment
February 15, 2017
#LegalTechLives with Josh Becker, CEO of Lex Machina
February 14, 2017
Predicting the Future of Legal Services
February 9, 2017
Lex Machina’s New Analytics Apps Explore Damages and Parties
January 27, 2017
Lex Machina Launches New Apps: Instant Insights into Litigation Damages and Parties
January 26, 2017
What Lawyers Can Learn from Uber, Redux
January 17, 2017
Lex Machina Litigation Report Shows 22% Drop in Patent Infringement Suits for 2016
January 17, 2017
In the patent world, it appears that the current litigation atmosphere is much less volatile than it has been in recent years. The fourth quarter of 2016 saw a total of 1,140 patent infringement cases filed in U.S. district courts, a small rise from the 1,126 patent lawsuits filed in the third quarter of the year. For the year, however, patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016.
New Patent Complaints Drop To Lowest Level Since 2011
January 12, 2017
Fewer patent cases were filed in 2016 than in any year since 2011, while the Eastern District of Texas maintained its position as by far the most popular patent suit venue for another year, according to a report released Thursday by legal analytics firm Lex Machina. A total of 4,520 new patent suits were filed last year, down 22 percent from 5,823 in 2015, the report found.
Graduating The Hype Cycle In alt.legal: Three Areas Of Change In 2017
January 4, 2017
Texas Law Firms Among Most Frequently Retained in Litigation Against Apple
January 1, 2017
The Four Consequential Patent Trends of 2016
December 30, 2016
Data Offers Deeper Legal Insights On How Judges Might Rule
December 21, 2016
A few clicks on Lex Machina showed that in recent years in the Northern District of Illinois, the median time to trial for a patent case is nearly four years, while in the Southern District of New York, it is roughly one year and eight months. The client is still deciding where to file the suit, Mr. Bauer said.
A Technician of the Robot Revolution
December 20, 2016
There’s also Lex Machina, which mines litigation data to generate insights about judges, lawyers, parties and case subjects. Law firms use it to land new clients and win lawsuits. In-house counsel use it to manage outside counsel and set litigation strategy.
The 10 Most Important Legal Technology Developments of 2016
December 20, 2016
Data Deepen Legal Insights
December 13, 2016
LexisNexis Enters Startup Accelerator Scene
December 12, 2016
How Artificial Intelligence Is Revolutionizing the Legal Practice
December 10, 2016
Legal Tech Download: BigLaw Analytics And AI Investments
December 9, 2016
LexisNexis and Lex Machina Launch Silicon Valley Legal Tech Accelerator
December 9, 2016
Breaking News: LexisNexis/Lex Machina Launch Accelerator
December 8, 2016
The Relentless Advance of the Super-intelligent Attorney
December 6, 2016
Artificial Intelligence and Law
November 18, 2016
Lex Machina Expands Legal Analytics Platform to Cover Antitrust Litigation
November 17, 2016
The Firms That Handle The Most Antitrust Litigation
November 16, 2016
Lex Machina’s Chief Data Scientist Talks Leveraging Analytics for the Modern Litigator
November 16, 2016
Lex Machina Adds Third Practice Area to its Legal Analytics: Antitrust
November 15, 2016
Lex Machina Launches Antitrust Litigation Module and Releases Report on Antitrust Litigation
November 15, 2016
offerings. Last summer they announced the launch of a securities analytics product. Today they are announcing the launch of an antitrust analytics product.
Intellectual Property Thought Leader Interview With Mark Lemley
October 31, 2016
America’s Biggest Filer of Patent Suits Wants You to Know It Invented Shipping Notification
October 27, 2016
Lex Machina Releases Data on Design Patent Litigation Showing Strong Correlation With Trademark Infringement Actions
October 26, 2016
Lex Machina IP Litigation Report for Q3 2016 Reflects a Downward Trend in Patent, Trademark Suits
October 20, 2016
Pedestrian Performance Expected from US Lenders
October 20, 2016
US Bank Earnings: 5 Things to Look Out For
October 14, 2016
2016 Could Be Slowest Year for US Patent Litigation since 2011: Report
October 12, 2016
New Patent Filings Down In 2016, Lowest Since 2011: Report
October 11, 2016
Patent Lawsuit Numbers Continue Their US Tumble; IPR cases, Though, are Back Up
October 11, 2016
The Early Years Begin for AI’s Transformation of Law
October 5, 2016
Meet Hal 9000, Esq.: How A.I. & Big Data Are Reshaping The Legal Profession
October 4, 2016
To understand the history of civilization, one must chart the ever-progressing convergence point of technology and humanity. Ours is a continuous story of disruption and adaptation, driven by innovation.
Five AI Pioneers to Watch
September 29, 2016
These Firms Lead The Pack in Handling Securities Suits
September 23, 2016
No More Secrets: These New Apps Dive Deep Into Law Firm Performance
September 20, 2016
Lex Machina Unveils New Comparator Apps to Simplify Use of Analytics
September 20, 2016
Analytics in Apps: Lex Machina Releases Federal Court, Law Firm Comparator Apps
September 20, 2016
Owen Byrd, Lex Machina’s general counsel and chief evangelist, noted the impetus behind launching the apps was attorney demand for a streamlined, easy-to-use interface for interpreting court and law firm’s data.
Lex Machina Launches New “Easy Button” Analytics Apps to Compare Judges, Courts and Law Firms
September 20, 2016
Buying into Business Intelligence
September 1, 2016
Can Data Be Your Litigation Edge? A Conversation With Lex Machina’s Owen Byrd
August 10, 2016
A Closer Look at the Busiest Month of Patent Litigation on Record
July 29, 2016
Patent Litigation Returning to Pre-2013 Levels, Says Lex Machina
July 27, 2016
Lex Machina Unveils Legal Analytics for Securities Lawyers
July 21, 2016
Copyright Lawsuits Over Online File-Sharing Drop in 2016 Q2, Study Says
July 21, 2016
Analytics Expanded: Lex Machina Extends Platform to Securities Law
7/21/2016
Lex Machina Expands Analytics from IP into Securities Law; Other Practice Areas to Follow Starting in September
July 21, 2016
File-sharing Lawsuit Numbers Drop by More Than Half
July 19, 2016
Big Data: Changing the Way We Work
July 18, 2016
Law Professors Call for Patent Venue Reform
July 13, 2016
First Half US Patent Litigation Down Dramatically with New Suits Falling by Almost 1,000
July 5, 2016
The Muscle Patents
June 10, 2016
Wheat runs a company that makes workout supplements. But now, he is being sued over a patent on arginine, an ingredient of some of the products he sells.
Lex Machina Trademark Litigation Report Shows Heavy Enforcement Activity for Luxury Fashion and Bong Brands
June 10, 2016
Technology Intellectual Property: Patently Obvious
May 31, 2016
More companies should think about monetising their innovations. Not every Silicon Valley company with rich intellectual property bothers to defend it. Altruistic, perhaps, but it is also a recipe for an activist attack. Unprotected IP is money on the table.
Trademark Suits Down as Research Reveals Most Litigious Companies (and the Firms That Represent Them)
May 27, 2016
New data from Lex Machina has highlighted a fall in trademark litigation filings in the US, with case numbers in the first quarter of this year at a seven-year low. If this trend continues, it will ring alarm bells in law firms that rely on contentious work for their revenue streams.
Fashion Brands Top List of Most Active Trademark Lawsuit Filing Parties
May 24, 2016
Litigation Numbers are Falling in East Texas, But it’s Still Predicted to be the Second Busiest Year on Record
May 24, 2016
Trademark Filings Dip Slightly in 2015: Report
May 24, 2016
Fashion Firms Active in Trademark Litigation
May 23, 2016
Calif.’s Central District Has Most Trademark Cases: Report
May 23, 2016
Trademark Litigation Steady, Report Finds
May 23, 2016
Fashion Brands Top List of Most Active Trademark Lawsuit Filing Parties
May 23, 2016
Trademark Lawsuit Filings In Decline
May 23, 2016
How AI And Crowdsourcing Are Remaking The Legal Profession
May 11, 2016
How Artificial Intelligence Helps Lawyers Compete in Today’s Data-driven World
May 5, 2016
The Small Town Judge Who Sees a Quarter of the Nation’s Patent Cases
May 5, 2016
Using Data to Select External Counsel
May 2, 2016
Drug Patent Litigation Filings Have Risen Significantly Since 2014
May 2, 2016
How AI Can Be Applied in Law
April 28, 2016
Data Analytics and Your Law Firm
April 28, 2016
Drug Price Debate: Can An Obscure Supreme Court Patent Case Lead To Lower Prescription Prices?
April 28, 2016
Pharma Patent Battles Up 68 Per Cent in 2015, Study Finds
April 27, 2016
The Firms That Handle The Most ANDA Patent Cases
April 26, 2016
Pharma Patent Battles Seeing Steep Increase
April 26, 2016
IP Litigation Report Shows Downward Trends in Patent, File Sharing Copyright and IPR Cases
April 26, 2016
In the Big Verdicts Arena, Don’t Mess with Texas
April 25, 2016
Icon Of IP: Durie Tangri’s Mark A. Lemley
April 22, 2016
Patent Dispute Lawsuits on the Rise in 2016
April 21, 2016
Avoiding The Pitfalls Of Researching Attorneys In PACER
April 21, 2016
New Patent Suits in Q1 Hit Lowest Level Since 2011
April 12, 2016
Patent Suits Down in 1Q. Is This Just a Litigation Lull?
April 11, 2016
Patent Litigation Report Shows Samsung Overtaking Apple as Top Defendant in 2015
March 31, 2016
Karl Harris Interview
March 30, 2016
Perspective: The Divide at the Heart of Legal Tech
March 29, 2016
The Blame Game: Why Hasn’t the Patent Office Done Anything About Low Quality Patents?
March 23, 2016
Lex Machina Report Confirms What We All Know: It’s Tough Being a Patent Plaintiff in the US These Days
March 18, 2016
Report: 2015 Saw a Near-Record Number of Patent Cases
March 16, 2016
Supreme Court petition 15-777 (Samsung v. Apple) closely watched by IP lawyers, relisted for this Friday
March 16, 2016
Survey: Almost Half of all 2015 Patent Suits were Filed in EDTX
March 16, 2016
Report: Patent Litigation Bounced Back, Migrated to Texas in 2015
March 15, 2016
Issued by data analytics company Lex Machina, the report looks at intellectual property litigation in U.S. District Courts, using data mined from PACER, the federal courts database.
Samsung and Apple Were Top Targets for Patent Suits in 2015
March 15, 2016
The Firms That Landed The Most Patent Suits Last Year
March 15, 2016
Legal Analytics for Strategy and Case Management
March 2016
Four Years of US Patent Litigation: an Infographic
February 16, 2016
Tech Round Up: Lex Machina Upgrades its Attorney Search Engine
February 12, 2016
Lex Machina’s Releases the Attorney Data Engine
February 10, 2016
Delaware, New Jersey Attorneys May Access New Data First
February 9, 2016
Lex Machina’s New Attorney Data Engine Takes on PACER for Court Data
February 9, 2016
New Lex Machina Feature Corrects Erroneous Lawyer Listings in PACER
February 9, 2016
One-Fifth of All IPR Petitions Denied Institution According to 2015 PTAB Report
February 9, 2016
Data Analytics: The Art of The Win
February 1, 2016
Report Finds That PTAB is Less Harmful to Patent Owners Than Many Believe
January 27, 2016
For First Time an Apple Patent is Challenged at PTAB and it’s One at Heart of Tussle With Samsung
January 26, 2016
In the Death Squad’s Sights – the Most Challenged Patents at the PTAB
January 22, 2016
What Analytics Says About Patent Trials
January 22, 2016
Apple Tried to Kill More Patents Than Anyone Else, By Far
January 21, 2016
Report Debunks Claim That PTAB Kills Off Patents
January 21, 2016
Lex Machina’s Legal Analytics for PTAB Generates Data on Demand
January 21, 2016
Judges Urged to Say A Day Doesn’t Make the Difference in Patent Suits
January 21, 2016
Foss Patents Blog Study Reveals Apple and Samsung are the Leading Utilizers of So-called ‘Patent Death Squads’
January 21, 2016
How Analytics Can Inform Early Strategy In Patent Cases
January 20, 2016
PTAB Not Such a Threat to Patents, Report Says
January 20, 2016
2015 Litigation Trends Highlight Increased Patent Litigation, Decreases in File Sharing Cases
January 8, 2016
Eastern Texas Had an ‘Astounding’ Number of Patent Cases in 2015
January 7, 2016
Although 2015 was a Big Year for US Patent Litigation, Look Behind the Headlines to See the Emerging Reality
January 7, 2016
The Value of Data-Driven Decision Making in the Law
December 15, 2015
4 Legal Tech Trends To Watch For In 2016
December 14, 2015
Patent Suits Flood East Texas Court
December 13, 2015
Lex Machina Enhances Patent Litigation Analytics And Microsoft Simplifies OneDrive Access
December 8, 2015
Legal Knowledge Management and the Rise of Artificial Intelligence
December 8, 2015
Legal Analytics, Data-Centric Lawyering and Early Case Strategy
December 7, 2015
2015 Innovator Awards: Lex Machina
December 4, 2015
Lex Machina Upgrades Legal Analytics Platform to Aid PTAB Case Strategies
December 3, 2015
AI Goes Mainstream as LexisNexis Acquires Lex Machina
December 1, 2015
Lexis Buys Stanford Spinoff Lex Machina
November 23, 2015
LexisNexis Acquires ‘Legal Analytics': Lex Machina
November 23, 2015
Menlo Park’s Lex Machina sold to LexisNexis
November 23, 2015
From Rumor to Reality: Insatiable LexisNexis Devours Legal Analytics Pioneer Lex Machina
November 23, 2015
LexisNexis Acquires Legal Analytics Provider Lex Machina
November 23, 2015
LexisNexis VP Steven Errick Discusses Lex Machina Acquisition
November 23, 2015
Selecting and Managing Outside Counsel: A Data-Driven Approach
November 20, 2015
Patent Litigation Will Never Be the Same Again
October 26, 2015
Lex Machina Launches Custom Insights: Data Mining for the Impatient Lawyer
October 23, 2015
5 Legal Tech Products to Check Out
October 21, 2015
IP Automator Releases 3 New Apps Designed for Speed
October 20, 2015
Lex Machina Releases Trio of Legal Analytics Applications
October 20, 2015
New Patent Lawsuits Down, Driven By Drop in East Texas “Troll” Cases
October 9, 2015
Securing Your Assets: Cybersecurity Protects Your Valuable Intellectual Property
October 1, 2015
Why Are So Many Law Firms Trapped in 1995?
October 1, 2015
The Hottest Fashion Statement You’ve Probably Never Heard Of: Copyright Litigation
September 28, 2015
Data Analytics Transforming Legal Industry
September 18, 2015
Law Firms Hire Data Pros To Woo GCs
September 4, 2015
Patently, a Record – Litigation Over Patents Saw a Record Half-year Rise
September 1, 2015
New Report Surveys IP Litigation Trends Over the Past Six Years
August 31, 2015
The Rise of Copyright Infringement Lawsuits— and What Retailers Can Do About It
August 26, 2015
Lex Machina’s Study Highlights US Copyright Litigation Trends
August 24, 2015
New Patent Infringement Lawsuits in East Texas Shatter Records
August 18, 2015
Ex-VC Josh Becker on Worrying Patent, Copyright Trends He’s Found at Lex Machina
August 17, 2015
New Report Digs Into Copyright Litigation Data
August 11, 2015
US Copyright Litigation Report Reveals File Sharing Cases Now Outnumber All Others
August 11, 2015
Adult Movie Outfit is Most Litigious Copyright Plaintiff in U.S.
August 13, 2015
Record Number of New Federal Patent Cases Filed in First Half of 2015
July 20, 2015
Data Analytics Gaining Ground, But Bold Promises Need Validation
July 20, 2015
After a Dip, Patent Litigation Is on the Rise
July 14, 2015
More than 3,000 patent lawsuits were filed in the first six months of the year, the highest number of new district court cases on record and an increase of more than 11 percent compared with the first half of 2014, according to statistics released Tuesday by Lex Machina.
Patent Owners Flock to U.S. Courts as Congress Ponders New Curbs
July 14, 2015
Some 1,656 patent-infringement suits were filed in the second quarter, the highest of any period recorded, according to figures issued Tuesday by Lex Machina, a Menlo Park, California-based legal analysis firm.
Possibility of More Reform Spurs Increase in Patent Case Filings
July 14, 2015
Patent Suit Filings Continue On Record Pace, Report Says
July 14, 2015
Patent Litigation at Record Highs as Reform Debate Heats Up
July 14, 2015
US Patent Litigation is on the Way Up Again, But Plaintiff Numbers are Close to Record Low
July 14, 2015
A New Look for Law Libraries: Fewer Books, More Tech
June 29, 2015
Will Legal Tech Eventually Disrupt Biglaw? A Conversation With Lex Machina’s Owen Byrd
June 19, 2015
The Age of Data-Driven Lawyering: How Lex Machina is Changing the IP Litigation Game
June 19, 2015
New Data Shows Patent Litigation Filings Up in 2015
June 5, 2015
Lex Machina Launches Trademark and Copyright Litigation Analytics Modules
June 4, 2015
Lex Machina Adds Tools for Copyright and Trademarks
June 1, 2015
Patent Litigation Report Raises Questions
May 26, 2015
Fee Shifting as Patent Policy Lever: How to Ensure Sufficient Torque
May 19, 2015
Taking Down Trolls
May 6, 2015
The Patent Games Publicly Traded Companies Play
May 6, 2015
Trademark Litigation Report Finds $9B in Damages
May 5, 2015
Lex Machina’s Trademark Litigation Report Provides Comprehensive and Accurate Insights on TM Data
May 4, 2015
Forming Future Progressives
May 2015
Boutiques Are In
May 2015
I’m Excited Again About New Legal Research Products
April 27 2015
Info Professionals Connect Knowledge
Spring 2015
Former Orrick Chair Sticks to His Roots
April 15, 2015
Study: Alice v. CLS Bank Led to a Strong Increase in Subject Matter Patent Invalidations
April 14, 2015
Patent Lawsuits Soar in Texas
April 13, 2015
South Florida’s Most Prolific Patent Troll Gets Back to Work
April 13, 2015
For Patent Trolls, a Time of Reckoning
April 13, 2015
Eastern District Tops in Patent Cases, Damages
April 2, 2015
New Study Shows ‘Dynamic’ Patent Litigation Environment
April 2, 2015
California-based Lex Machina, a now-private company initially set up by experts at Stanford University’s computer science department and law school, released its second annual Patent Litigation Year in Review report last week.
Eastern District of Texas No. 1 Home for Patent Suits, Report Finds
April 2, 2015
Predicting the Future with Analytics
April 2, 2015
Lex Machina Adds Tools for Copyright and Trademarks
April 2, 2015
Copyright and Trademark Lawyers Can Now Play ‘Moneyball’ on Lex Machina
April 2, 2015
Why A Tech GC Is Choosing Data Tools Over BigLaw
March 27, 2015
Data Shows 2014 a Historic Year for Patent Litigation
March 27, 2015
The Innovation Act of 2015: Congress Targets Patent ‘Trolls’ Again
March 26, 2015
Patent Cases Dropping, New Jersey the Exception – Study
March 26, 2015
New Data Confirms that US Patents are Being Knocked Out on 101 Grounds in Record Numbers
March 26, 2015
Lex Machina: Bringing Analytics to Law
March 23, 2015
The 2014-15 Start Stop Survey Results: The Products. Out with the Old. In With the Innovative: Lex Machina Best New Product. Fastcase/HeinOnline Best Innovation
March 22, 2015
An Interview with Owen Byrd from Lex Machina
March 19, 2015
5 Questions GCs Should Ask All Firms Before Hiring Them
March 17, 2015
Law Firm Trends: AmLaw Firms Dandling Smaller Percentage of Cases Filed in 2014
March 16, 2015
For IP Cases, In-House Counsel Looking to Smaller Firms
March 11, 2015
Firms Claim Bragging Rights in New Field of Patent Litigation
March 6, 2015
Patent Litigation Data – March 2015
March 5, 2015
A Letter to Congress on Patent Reform from 51 IP Academics is Powerful, but Omits Many Key Points
March 3, 2015
Legal Analytics Transform Law Department Patent Activity
March 2015
Don’t Bet Against Apple Turning the Tables in its $500 Million Battle with NPE Spartflash
February 26 2015
Lex Machina Launches Legal Analytics for PTAB Trials
February 19, 2015
Lex Machina Adds PTAB Data and New ACC Article Provides “in House” View of Lex Machina and Legal Analytics
February 19, 2015
The Early Days of Legal Analytics
February 7, 2015
The Trend is Clear – Patent Litigation Rates in the US are on the Decline
February 5, 2015
LegalTech New York 2015 Expectations (5 of 5): From Analytics to Machine Learning
February 5, 2015
Firms Must Know Big Data To Get Hired, In-House Counsel Say
February 5, 2015
Patent ‘Death Squad’ Rules Owners Denounce Upheld by U.S. Courts
February 4, 2015
Stanford-Bred Startup Uses Moneyball Stats To Handicap Judges, Lawyers
February 2, 2015
Legal Tech Poses Training Problem in Big Law: Seyfarth Leader
January 25, 2015
US Patent Litigation Rocketed 32% in December – Lex Machina
January 13, 2015
Viewpoint: IP Startups Herald Age of Data Disruption
January 9, 2015
IMHO: Hits, Misses and Random Observations on Legal Information and Technology — Highlights of 2014
January 6, 2015
How Does Your Law Firm Library Stack Up? 5 Signs You are Ready for the Future.
January 6, 2015
Patent Cases Pending as of January 1, 2015
January 6, 2015
Q&A: Stanford’s Mark Lemley on the changing landscape for intellectual property law
December 29, 2014
The Most Significant US Patent Stories of 2014
December 19, 2014
Introducing The Innovators
December 8, 2014
Lex Machina: A LegalTech Model for Success
December 4, 2014
Lex Machina’s Custom Insights Provides Personalized Analytics for Insights into Cases and Trends
November 25, 2014
Legal Analytics and Corporate Law – A Roundtable Discussion
November 18, 2014
Lex Machina Adds Bigger Data “Custom Insights”– Raising the Analytics Bar for IP Litigators
November 13, 2014
Lex Machina and the Wave of Legal Research and Analytics Resources
November 13, 2014
Litigation Data – New Data Analytics Features to Show Custom Views of Patent Case Data
November 12, 2014
Surprising Data About ANDA Litigation
November 11, 2014
Pending Patent Cases in Decline
November 7, 2014
ANDA Patent Lawsuits Jumped This Year: Study
November 6, 2014
Which Biglaw Practices Did Well In The Third Quarter?
November 6, 2014
Lex Machina looks at ANDA Cases
November 5, 2014
Sue Me, Sue You Blues: More Generic Patent Litigation is Being Filed
November 5, 2014
Study Finds ANDA Litigation Has Continued to Increase Since 2012
November 3, 2014
Report: Generic Patent Litigation on the Rise and IP Vulnerable at an Earlier Stage
November 3, 2014
Patent Litigation: Who’s Doing the Work?
November 1, 2014
Patent Suits Drop as Rule Changes Favor Tech Companies
October 28, 2014
#EvolveLaw: A CodeX Demo Event At Stanford on Legal Technology
October 24, 2014
Big Tech Winning Battle With ‘Patent Trolls’
October 22, 2014
Legal Analytics Based on Litigation Data Transform Outside Counsel Selection
October 20, 2014
Lex Machina a Smash Hit in Law 2050
October 15, 2014
Patent Trolling Has Been Crazy Profitable, But Thanks To Supreme Court, New Lawsuits Are Declining
October 13, 2014
Silicon Valley’s Anti-Patent Propaganda: Success at What Cost?
October 12, 2014
‘Alice’ Casts Ripples Through Courts, Shakes Up Investors
October 10, 2014
Is Alice Deterring US Patent Case Filings?
October 9, 2014
Patent Lawsuits are Down. Does the Supreme Court Deserve Credit?
October 9, 2014
Alice Decision a Big Reason For Sharp Fall in US Patent Litigation, Says Mark Lemley
October 9, 2014
New Patent Suits Drop Off Sharply From Last Year
October 8, 2014
Fewer Patent Litigation Filings So Far in 2014
October 8, 2014
Lex Machina Out With Legal Analytics for Big Pharma Drug Manufacturers and Their Counsel Get Legal Analytics for Litigation in New Drug Applications
September 29, 2014
Patent Trolls are Starting to Get Trampled
September 24, 2014
A Big Change in the ANDA Litigation Paradigm: Lex Machina’s Legal Analytics
September 24, 2014
Courts Nix More Software Patents
September 21, 2014
Software Patents are Crumbling, Thanks to the Supreme Court
September 12, 2014
Patent Cases Pour into East Texas
August 28, 2014
Study: Patent Law Changes, High-Volume Plaintiffs Make for More Litigation
August 25, 2014
Patent Trolls Under Attack, But Not Dead Yet
August 15, 2014
In Legal Field, Using Technology to Stay on Top of a Shifting Market
August 1, 2014
The Overstated Effect of Patent Trolls on Litigation
July 31, 2014
Compensatory Damages in Patent Litigation: Which Firms Won the Biggest Bucks?
July 28, 2014
A ‘Moneyball’ Approach to In-house Litigation Plans
July 17, 2014
Top IP Verdicts Of 2014 — And The Firms That Won Them
July 8, 2014
Serving Up Software – 9 Legal Technology Companies You Should Know
July 2014
Patent Litigation: Fewer, But Bigger Awards
June 30, 2014
Damages Report Reveals Patent Litigation is Not Value for Money
June 26, 2014
Study: Patent Awards Not as High as They Might Seem
June 25, 2014
Patent Judgments Trend Up, But Still No Bonanza
June 17, 2014
Increasing Patent Damages: A Discussion with Mark Lemley
June 11, 2014
5 Reasons Patents are on the Rise
June 2, 2014
Congress Must Not Abandon Meaningful Patent Reform | Commentary
May 28, 2014
The Patent Lawsuit Crisis in 5 Charts
May 28, 2014
States Revise Laws to Curb ‘Patent Trolls’
May 21, 2014
Apple Was Sued the Most Over Patents in 2013
May 16, 2014
Apple Was the No. 1 Target of Patent Lawsuits in 2013
May 15, 2014
Four Stories We Missed From Last Year’s Patent Battles
May 14, 2014
The Year in Patent Litigation: More Trolling, More Texas
May 14, 2014
Apple Amongst Most-Sued as Patent Shakedowns Skew Market
May 13, 2014
Apple is Patent Suit Target No. 1 as Toll of the Troll Grows
May 13, 2014
Big Jump in U.S. Patent Infringement Cases in 2013 Despite Reform –Experts
May 13, 2014
Apple, Amazon Top Patent Targets in 2013
May 13, 2014
Patent Litigation Study Shows Rise in Suits, Awards
May 13, 2014
NPEs, Tech Cos. Dominate Patent Cases, Report Says
May 13, 2014
Top Plaintiffs are Operating Cos Not NPEs, New Study Shows
May 13, 2014
These Venture Capitalists Skip Law Firms for Legal Services Startups
May 1, 2014
Moneyball For Lawyers
How Lawyers and Law Firms Operate in a Big Data World
April 11, 2014
Die Rechts-Maschine
March 25, 2014
The USPTO Makes Patent Trolls Searchable
February 21, 2014
USPTO Taps Lex Machina for Data on Infringement Demand Letters
February 21, 2014
Got a Patent Troll Demand Letter? See if it’s Legit
February 21, 2014
More Action From White House to Curb Patent Abuses
February 21, 2014
Obama Move Aids Recipients of Patent Owners’ Demand Letters
February 20, 2014
White House Invites the Crowd to Fight Patent Trolls, But it Won’t Solve the Problem
February 20, 2014
IP By the Numbers
February 2014
New Patent Filings Hit Lowest Monthly Level In Over 2 Years
February 4, 2014
New Patent Filings Down to Lowest Level in Two Years
February 4, 2014How New Tech Can Help Lawyers Rethink Their Jobs in the Big Data Age
Law Machine Puts Patent Files at Congress’s Fingertips
AIPLA Taps Lex Machina for Legal Analytics
Why Google Needs To Take Rockstar’s Complaint Seriously
Start-Ups Look for Piece of the Legal Research Market
Information Overload: Big Data Threatens Business Model of Even the Elite Law Firms
Patent Litigation Gets a Boost from Legal Analytics
Big Data And Law: A Start-Up Disrupting Patent Litigation
Supercharging Patent Lawyers With AI
Patent Trolls Beware
Lex Machina Uses Big Data, Legal Analytics Tools to Help IP Attorneys
Wave of Patent Cases Hits the Bay Area
Should Lawyers Fear Big Data, or Embrace It?
‘Patent Trolls’ Live to Sue — but they Only File 20% of Patent Suits
Long Awaited GAO Report: Software Patent Quality Most Responsible for Litigation Abuse
Patent Troll Report By GAO Gets Mixed Reviews
A Positive Disruption: The Transformation Of Law Through Technology
Moneyball for Law
Is Stanford Law the New Vortex of Legal Technology?
Lex Machina, a Big Data Play for IP Law, Raises $4.8 Million
Lex Machina Raises $4.8M First Round Led By Cue Ball Capital As IP Litigation Reaches New Highs
Law Big Data Startup Lex Machina Raises $4.8 Million
How Lawyers are Mining the Information Mother Lode for Pricing, Practice Tips and Predictions
Patent Law May Not Alter Litigation Strategy, but A New Patent Office Proceeding Might
Lex Machina: IP Litigation and Analytics
Cisco’s Patent Counterattack Fails
“Did You Ever Hear of Lex Machina?”
US Gov’t Order Adds Wrinkle to Google Patent Push
