Editors:

Jeffrey Johnson, Editor in Chief
Melissa Schwaller, Associate Editor
Kenneth Liu, Associate Editor
Natalie Alfaro, Associate Editor

Karthika Perumal, Verdicts and Injunctions Editor

Michael Topping
Jennine Crane
Suchismita Pahi

Student Editors

Prof. Paul M. Janicke, Faculty Coordinator

VIEW STATS

 

[last updated April 25, 2014]

 

Full Year 2013 Stats Posted

Rulings for the full calendar year 2013 are now posted.

 

Verdicts Updated

Our tracking of jury verdicts in patent cases is updated to December 31, 2013.

Injunction Rulings Updated

Rulings on post-eBay requests for permanent injunctions are updated to December 31, 2013.

 

Patent Cases Filed in 2013

6,427 patent cases were filed in calendar year 2013. [Source: Lexis CourtLink.] By comparison, 5,778 patent cases were filed in calendar 2012. This tends to verify that not all of the rise in 2012 filings was due to the AIA's joinder constraints. Patent litigation is on the increase. For 2013 Eastern Texas was highest, with 1513 filings in 2013 (versus 1266 cases in 2012), now 23.5% of the national total. Second was Delaware, with 1336 filings (up from 997 in 2012), now 20.8% of the national total. Central California was again a distant third, dropping from 517 cases in 2012 to 486 in 2013.

We have to wonder why 44.3% of all U.S. patent cases are filed in just two districts, spaced far apart from each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View stats

 

Regular patstats service: The University of Houston Law Center's Institute for Intellectual Property and Information Law is pleased to provide quarterly research information on recent patent law decisions in United States courts. Our reports began with the first quarter of 2000. We portray data on all reported patent decisions, including those affirmances decided by the Federal Circuit under Rule 36 with no published opinion. We track the cases on an issue-specific basis, e.g., public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) [issue 03], or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents [issue 24], or inequitable conduct [issue 17]. We hope to provide scholars, commentators, and practitioners with valuable data on trends in the enforcement side of patent law, to complement published data from other sources regarding the filing of patent applications and the issuance of patents. Beginning with the first quarter of 2005, we have posted a caselist identifying the cases from which our statistics are drawn. Each case on the list has an index number. Next to each entry in patstats there is a bracketed string of numerals identifying the cases that make up the entry. For example, if there were 7 patentee victories on the public use issue, the entry might read: P: 7 [33, 38, 66(3), 74(2)]. This signifies that case numbers 33, 38, 66, and 74 were the cases in which these seven patentee victories on public use occurred. Recall that patstats counts successes patent-by-patent. Case 66 involved public use holdings on three different patents and case 74 involved public use holdings on two patents.

We report only on the current highest level decision in a given case, and we discard earlier rulings. For example, if a district court held a patent valid, but the court of appeals later held it invalid, we will include the appellate ruling in our current data and delete the district court ruling if it was included in any prior reported data. We will likewise go back and delete a statistic when a court of appeals opinion is withdrawn in order to rehear the case en banc. A new statistic will appear when the en banc decision comes down. Thus, we are always reporting the highest level of decision thus far reached in a given case, and past reports are subject to later adjustment.

We do not attempt to gather data on unreported district court cases, but we do include non-precedential decisions and Rule 36 summary affirmances by the Federal Circuit. For the Rule 36 cases we determine the affirmed points by inspecting the appellate briefs. We include reported cases decided by the International Trade Commission and the Court of Federal Claims. However, we do not report on decisions of the PTO's Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences or on court appeals therefrom.

We report each issue that has been decided. Where multiple patents are litigated and decided, we report each as a separate item. We do likewise where different claims of a patent are adjudicated in different ways, e.g., claim 1 invalid for on-sale bar, and claim 19 invalid for obviousness. Hence a single reported case could well generate four or five issue determination, sometimes. It is therefore not valid to conclude from these data that patentees won or lost a certain number of "cases," or that the accused infringers did so.

* Mr. Johnson is Research Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and a partner at the Houston office of DLA Piper. Ms. Schwaller is Counsel at the Houston law firm Ramey & Browning. Ms. Alfaro is an attorney at the Houston office of Baker Botts. Mr. Liu is a partner in the Houston law firm Eubanks & Liu. Ms. Perumal is an attorney with Bracewell & Giuliani's Houston office. Professor Janicke is the HIPLA Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center. For comments or inquiries, please address ipil@uh.edu.

 

Home           View Stats

TABLE OF ISSUES REPORTED

Validity rulings --

102(a) -- prior public knowledge or publication
102(b) -- time-bar publication or patent
102(b) -- public use
102(b) -- on sale
102(c) -- abandonment
102(d) -- prior foreign patenting
102(e) -- earlier-filed US patent of another
102(f) -- derived subject matter; wrong inventorship
102(g) -- prior invention by another
103 -- obviousness
112, inadequate disclosure -- description
112, inadequate disclosure -- enablement
112, inadequate disclosure -- best mode
112, claim indefinite
Double patenting
Improper broadening


Enforceability rulings --

Inequitable conduct
Misuse


Procedural rulings --

Laches
Equitable estoppel
Limitations
Failure to mark

Infringement issues --

Literal direct infringement
Doctrine of equivalents direct infringement
Inducing infringement
Contributory infringement
Selling or importing product of patented process
Shipping abroad (§ 271(f) or (g))
License defense
Exhaustion defense
Exemption under § 271(e)
Exemption for other experimentation

Damages calculations --

Lost profits
Reasonable royalty
Split bases

Special Factors rulings --

Willfulness
Enhanced damages due to willfulness
Attorney fees to patentee
Attorney fees to accused infringer
Preliminary injunction


Please refer any questions to the IPIL Program Coordinator at the following e-mail address: ipil@uh.edu