Patexia Insight 171: Best Performing Plaintiffs and Defendants of 2023
We released our third Patent Litigation Intelligence Report in late January, a study that covered 18,493 district court patent cases filed over a five year period from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022. We analyzed and presented high-level statistics and data concerning patent litigation in district courts, along with the rankings of each entity based on their performance and activity in the three categories of defendant, plaintiff, and overall. We have already covered some statistics from this report including the rise of Judge Albright in patent litigation, the 50 most active patent attorneys, and the most active defendants and plaintiffs, this week we will cover some of the best-performing defendants and plaintiffs during the period of our study.
As of December 31, 2022, the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system recorded that 14,656 out of 18,493 patent cases filed between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, had been concluded. The remaining 3,837 cases from this period had not yet been concluded and their decision classifications in PACER were still pending at the time we combined the data. The chart below summarizes the statuses of the terminated cases:
As seen above, the majority of the 14,656 patent cases that reached a decision and were concluded according to PACER were dismissed for different reasons (79%). A smaller number of cases (7.5%) resulted in a judgment. The remaining cases were either transferred or closed due to statistical reasons or non-reportable closings. The settlement remains a key factor for dismissals, as parties may prefer to reach an agreement rather than continuing to pursue litigation, which can be time-consuming and expensive. Strategic considerations, jurisdictional issues, and changes in circumstances can also lead to dismissals. For example, a party may choose to dismiss a case if they believe they have a weak case or if they believe that the costs of litigation outweigh any potential benefits. In some cases, parties may choose to voluntarily dismiss their case if there are jurisdictional issues that could impact the outcome of the case. For example, if the case was filed in the wrong district, the parties may choose to dismiss the case and refile it in a different district. Sometimes, parties may choose to dismiss a case because there have been changes in circumstances that make litigation unnecessary or impractical. For example, if a defendant has stopped selling a product that is the subject of the litigation, the plaintiff may choose to dismiss the case voluntarily. If the plaintiff's primary goal in a litigation case is to halt the defendant's actions rather than seek monetary damages, then voluntary dismissal may be a viable option.
We categorized the above statuses based on the prevailing side and excluded non-scorable cases where neither party won. While PACER statuses provide some information about a case's outcome, judgment outcomes alone do not indicate the ultimate winner. Therefore, we manually reviewed certain case categories to create a scoring system for performance rankings. Our approach to calculating performance scores was not solely based on the success of companies in litigation. We recognize that there is a distinction between a company that wins one out of one case and another that wins 10 out of 11. To ensure fair rankings that account for variations in workloads across different entities, we developed a performance score that is a weighted average of both Activity and Success scores. This is particularly useful for law firms and attorneys, as the level of activity among these entities can vary significantly.
Throughout our study period, a total of 20,065 distinct companies participated as defendants, plaintiffs, or both. Among these, 5,865 unique entities served as plaintiffs, averaging 3.5 cases per plaintiff. On the other side, 15,580 entities acted as defendants, averaging 1.8 cases per defendant. The tables below present the top 5 best-performing companies in overall, defendant, and plaintiff categories:
| Overall Performance Rank | Company | Overall Performance Score | Top 3 Firms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
100.00% |
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP; Venable; Oliva Gibbs LLP |
|
| 2 | Canon Inc. | 89.72% | Venable; The Law Offices Of George B. Piggott; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe |
| 3 |
84.80% |
Gillam Smith; Fish & Richardson; O'Melveny & Myers LLP |
|
| 4 | Verizon | 84.32% | Potter Minton; Duane Morris LLP; Dacus Law Firm |
| 5 |
83.55% |
DLA Piper; Fish & Richardson; Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP |
| Defendant Performance Rank | Company | Defendant Performance Score | Top 3 Firms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
100.00% |
Gillam Smith; Fish & Richardson; O'Melveny & Myers LLP |
|
| 2 | AT&T Company | 98.83% | Baker Botts LLP; Dacus Law Firm; Duane Morris LLP |
| 3 |
97.81% |
Fenwick & West LLP; Morrison & Foerster; Susman Godfrey |
|
| 4 | Verizon | 97.69% | Potter Minton; Duane Morris LLP; Dacus Law Firm |
| 5 |
97.48% |
Potter Minton; Perkins Coie; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan |
| Plaintiff Performance Rank | Company | Plaintiff Performance Score | Top 3 Firms |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
100.00% |
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP; Venable; Oliva Gibbs LLP |
|
| 2 | Canon Inc. | 93.07% | Venable; The Law Offices Of George B. Piggott; Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe |
| 3 |
71.92% |
Holland & Knight; Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Radulescu LLP |
|
| 4 | Deckers Outdoor Corporation | 71.60% | Blakely Law Group; Nixon Peabody; RMO LLP |
| 5 |
69.13% |
Devlin Law Firm; GrayRobinson; Sullivan & Cromwell |
As observed, the lists are comprised of the major players in the technology sectors, designers and manufacturers of electronic devices, cameras, hardware, software, and cloud services. In addition, there are several brands, including Luxottica and Deckers Outdoor, that specialize in designing, manufacturing, and distributing eyewear and fashion products.
In addition to providing numerous high-level statistics related to filing trends, outcome analysis, case length, and the most popular IPC codes, the full Patent Litigation Intelligence Report also includes further information related to companies, such as full rankings in each category, activity rankings, and the top three law firms with which they have collaborated in patent litigation.
In the next few weeks, we plan to cover some of the best-performing and most active law firms as well as attorneys based on our Patent Litigation Report 2023. Stay tuned!