NPEs Continue to Play Large Role in Patent Litigation

17 August 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

The annual patent litigation study recently released by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) sets forth some interesting trends in patent litigation, including that cases involving non-practicing entities (NPEs) continue to account for a large and increasing amount of patent cases. This may bolster recent calls by some to curb abusive patent litigation, which many largely attribute to certain types of cases involving NPEs. In 2013, cases involving NPEs accounted for the majority of new patent infringement cases, continued to be concentrated in a relatively small number of districts, and had higher damages awards even though damages overall are decreasing in patent litigation.

According to the report, the number of patent infringement cases increased by 25% in 2013 to a record filing of 6,500 new cases. NPEs accounted for 67% of these filings, compared to only 28% in 2009. However, only 20% of decisions issued in 2013 involved NPEs, which may reflect a tendency for these cases to settle or be dismissed prior to trial, summary judgment, or other dispositive rulings.

These cases were concentrated in several districts; five district courts accounted for 41% of all decisions involving NPEs. Notably, the Eastern District of Texas rendered 12% of those decisions. The Eastern District of Texas also had one of the highest NPE success rates (46%). Other jurisdictions with a high number of NPE decisions included the Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and the District of Delaware.

Although median damages awards are decreasing overall in patent litigation, damages awarded to NPEs are increasing. Over the last four years, NPEs were awarded damages averaging more than three times the damages awarded to practicing entities. Median damages for for-profit NPEs were slightly higher than awards for non-profit NPEs (such as universities). Awards to individuals who asserted, but did not practice, patents were significantly lower than those to both for-profit and non-profit NPEs

In addition to these statistics, the study also included some interesting statistics regarding patent litigation in general, although no doubt influenced by NPE litigation. In terms of favorability to patent holders, the top four districts remain the same compared to prior years: Eastern District of Virginia, District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas, and Western District of Wisconsin. However, the fifth spot in the rankings went to a new district, the Middle District of Florida. Although the Middle District of Florida had the lowest amount of damages awarded ($322,927), it averaged a relatively fast time to trial (1.80 years) and a high success rate for patent holders (54%).

The judges with the highest number of patent cases on their dockets included Judge Sue Robinson (Del.), Judge Gregory Sleet (Del.), Judge Leonard Davis (E.D. Tex.), and Judge Leonard Stark (Del.). These judges also yielded damages awards significantly higher than the median. Judge Robinson and Judge Stark recently released new guidelines and procedures for patent litigation, likely due to the high volume of patent cases on their dockets.

The study also looked at trends in certain industries and found that the consumer products industry had the largest percentage of patent decisions. Additionally, patent holders in the consumer products, biotechnology/pharmaceutical, medical devices, and computer hardware/electronics industries had higher success rates than the overall median. The telecommunications industry, in particular, had the highest median damages award at $22 million.

New to the study this year were statistics related to appeals of cases to the Federal Circuit. The study found that 71% of district court cases were appealed, and 76% of those decisions were modified in some way.

Finally, the study found that the number of issued patents continued to grow, with 300,000 patents granted in 2013. This continues the trend of high correlation between the number of patent cases filed and the number of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For more detail, the full report of the study can be found here.

Although many of these statistics may come as no surprise to practitioners, these statistics do provide a clearer picture of the role of NPEs in the changing landscape of patent litigation. With more cases filed by NPEs each year and the increasing amount of damages awarded to NPEs, these findings will likely influence litigation strategy depending on the parties, the jurisdiction, and potential damages involved. The continued upward trend in NPE cases may also provide additional support for recent and forthcoming efforts to introduce new legislation aimed at curbing abusive patent litigation.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights