Sometimes you will need to dive deeper into Lex Machina’s data than you can with our Legal Analytics Platform. In this case our professional services organization is happy to support you.
When needed, our team of legal data scientists and analysts delivers customized reports and data services for litigation decision support, patent portfolio analytics, and public policy-making.
Our standard services reports are listed below. Don’t see what you need? Most of our services engagements originate from unique questions our customers have. Let us know what you need and we will try to fulfill it.
Our reports are priced from $5,000 up, depending on the type and scope of the report.
First Impression Early Case Assessment
If you’ve just received a serious threat letter, or worse, service of a complaint, this report can help you get your bearings. Providing key intelligence on a single party of interest to you, this report shows their litigation history, revealing trends in the number of cases brought, their subject matter and duration, and key connections to particular districts or law firms. If you already have a forum in mind, the report can provide an overview of the district’s experience with varying case types and how it compares to national norms.
Example: The general counsel of a small to mid-sized company received a complaint from an LLC with a cryptic name he did not recognize, accusing his company of infringing. With this report, he knew how litigious the LLC has been, how experienced the judge is, whether the LLC had ever won damages, and how long the cases have lasted.
District and Judges Profiles
Choosing among districts in which to file? Appearing in front of a judge for the first time? Go beyond the district and judge analytics in our platform with a profile report that synthesizes trends in motion practice and case outcomes, patents asserted, patent outcomes, time to claim construction, trial, and termination, and the court’s experience with specific law firms and attorneys.
Example: The chief intellectual property counsel at a large pharmaceutical company heard that the judge in his case would often rule on claim construction without a hearing. Our comprehensive judge profile included confirmation of this behavior in over 80% of the judge’s ANDA cases. As a result, our customer knew to put its best arguments in its pleadings, holding nothing back for a hearing that was unlikely to happen. This strategy generated a better claim construction result and case outcome.
Example: A law firm representing a small manufacturing client located in Eastern District of California wanted to understand the district’s experience with patent litigation, and to evaluate the litigation history of the judges in the district. Lex Machina was able to help them compare the Eastern District to other potential jurisdictions, allowing them to demonstrate to the client that staying close to home could save them money without increased risk to their case.
Received a demand letter or a complaint from an unfamiliar party? Want to analyze prior litigation behavior by that party, including the counsel it has used and the litigation history or its asserted patents, to accurately assess the threat? Arm yourself with knowledge of how long the party’s cases last and the types of outcomes they have achieved.
Example: The assistant general counsel in the patent strategy group of a large tech company wanted to know how often (and under what conditions) a competitor, including a recently acquired subsidiary, asserted its patents offensively. Our report analyzed the competitor’s relevant litigation history and behavior as revealed in our data, as well as all asserted patents, providing our customer with critical strategic intelligence on the cases pursued (and kinds of patents asserted) by the competitor.
Peer Company Benchmarking
The most sophisticated companies not only use Legal Analytics to assess adverse parties – they use it to assess their own litigation strategies. Our peer company benchmarking reports evaluate strategic patent litigation behavior and compare it with the behavior of peers and competitors. By assessing patent litigation volumes, case outcomes and average duration, settlement propensities, trials, damages awards, propensity for NPE (non-practicing entity) or PME (patent monetization entity) litigation, and other subjects, a company can use analytics to refine the strategy it deploys across its docket of patent litigation cases.
Example: The director of intellectual property litigation at a large tech company wanted to employ analytics to evaluate its patent litigation record over a nine-year period and compare it with 17 peer companies. We analyzed data from nearly 3,000 cases and generated over 50 slides with detailed charts and graphs, enabling our customer to employ data-driven venue selection, settlement, motion, trial and damages strategies.
Law Firm Profiles
Want a comprehensive analysis of the tactics used, and results obtained, by your counsel, opposing counsel, or counsel you may want to retain? Our law firm profiles analyze counsel’s experience with specific judges, parties, opposing counsel, patents, and technologies, including case outcomes and overall win-loss records.
Example: The senior deputy general counsel of a large tech company wanted to know how the firm his company used for all of its patent litigation compared to a new firm he was thinking about retaining. Our team evaluated the litigation histories, top clients, case outcomes, and damages awarded to provide a scorecard highlighting the wins and losses for each firm.
Case Law Trends and Customized Reporting
From damages awards and attorneys fees awards, to quantifying the application of legal doctrines, and statistical analysis of non-practicing entity litigation, we have confirmed suspected trends in case law that were difficult or impossible to assess prior to development of Lex Machina’s data and analytics.
Example: A tech industry advocacy organization was preparing an amicus brief to file with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case about awards of attorneys fees in patent infringement litigation. It had Lex Machina quantify and analyze all awards of attorneys’ fees awarded under 35 U.S.C. §285 between 2003-2005 and 2010-2012. We published our results and the customer cited those results in its brief.
Example: When Congress passed the American Invents Act in 2011, it directed the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study ”on the consequences of patent infringement lawsuits brought by non-practicing entities.” The GAO, in turn, selected Lex Machina through a competitive contracting process to provide patent infringement litigation data, select a sample of cases and classify the plaintiffs in those cases. The GAO issued its report in 2013 and it has been central to patent policy reforms proposed by the White House and debated in Congress.
Example: Congress asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the impact on innovation in the United States of implementing a prior-user rights defense in patent litigation. A tech industry advocacy organization, in turn, asked Lex Machina to investigate the empirical incidence of merits determinations surrounding the governing statute, 35 U.S.C. §102(g)(2). The report was presented to the PTO and informed its recommendations to Congress.
Outside Counsel Identification
Want to identify highly qualified outside counsel to represent your company? Use objective performance data, drawn from the track records of attorneys and firms before the U.S. District Courts, to inform and corroborate your choice of counsel, or to discover new counsel.
Example: The deputy general counsel for intellectual property at a large tech company wanted alternatives to the roster of big law firms that had handled his company’s prior cases. He requested a list of 50 boutique firms that had a) never been adverse to his company, b) learned his technology areas while representing other clients, and c) substantial recent and successful experience. He continues to use the list repeatedly to inform his choice of outside counsel for new cases.
Pricing: $20,000 to $50,000+, depending on the scope and any customization
Patent Portfolio Analytics
Litigation analytics can supplement other traditional valuation activities to provide guidance for appraisal, purchase, sale, monetization or enforcement of a specific patent portfolio. We analyze the parties involved, their case outcomes, and any damages awarded. Additionally, our Patent Similarity Engine reveals patents asserted in litigation similar to those in the portfolio, allowing us to evaluate portfolios with little litigation history.
Example: The executive vice-president/general counsel of a large tech company wanted to identify opportunities to monetize two of its patent portfolios, as well as analyze the monetization potential of a portfolio it was thinking about acquiring. We uncovered tens of millions of dollars of opportunity that had not been previously identified by the company by identifying similar patents and relevant prior litigation.
Pricing: $1,000 per patent, depending on the scope and any customization
Evaluate the patent litigation landscape in your industry, gaining insight into existing players’ strategies and potentially revealing new or unknown players. This report includes analysis of the most common venues, particularly experienced judges, distribution of damages, and key parties and firms.
Example: A company manufacturing a particular form of computer memory wanted to understand the costs and risks of remaining in the industry. Our report revealed which competitors were suing each other (and the results their strategies produced), the districts where litigation in this industry occurred, and the vulnerability of the industry to non-practicing entity (NPE) / patent monetization entity (PME) litigation.