2009 Patent Litigation Study

8/14/2019 2009 Patent Litigation Study

1/24

A closer look*Patent litigation trends and the increasingimpact o nonpracticing entities

2009 Patent Litigation Study

*connectedthinking


2/24


3/24

The heart o the matter 2

An in-depth discussion

What this means to your business 19

Methodology 20

About the authors

Table o contents

August 2009


4/24

The debate over patent reorm has become more strident in the past ew years as many othe worlds largest companies ace increasing threats o litigation not only rom competitors,but also rom organizations known as nonpracticing entities (NPEs) that do not design,manuacture, or distribute products.

Part o this debate is about The Patent Reorm Act, which is currently stalled in the USHouse o Representatives Judiciary Committee, ater recently clearing the Senate JudiciaryCommittee. Recent hearings in the House indicate that its members dont eel bound tothe Senates version o the Bill. Nevertheless, i passed, this legislation will be the mostsignicant patent reorm in over 50 years. A central issue that has emerged rom thisdebate involves how damages are calculated. Courts now have the discretion to awarddamages based upon a wide range o actors that aect the market value o a patent. Thecurrent version o the legislation would provide an evidentiary gatekeeper to ensure areasonable royalty is applied only to the economic value attributable to the patents speciccontribution to the product, a concept reerred to as damages apportionment. The battlelines over apportionment pit selected industries against one another. High-tech sotware andtelecommunications companies may embed hundreds o patented components within theirproducts; thus, they welcome changes to current patent law. However, major pharmaceuticacompanies, biotech companies, and NPEs, who typically have a smaller number o patentscovering their products, preer the status quo.

2 Patent litigation trends and the increasing impact o nonpracticing entities

The heart o the matter

2


5/24


Recently, the US Supreme Court issued a number o rulings that have curbed some o theleverage NPEs can wield when attempting to monetize their patents. The 2006 decision ineBay v. MercExchange made it much harder or NPE patent holders to receive injunctions byestablishing a our-part test to determine whether an injunction is warranted. In MedImmunev. Genentech (2007), the Court ruled a licensee is not required to terminate its licenseagreement beore seeking a declaratory judgment to determine whether the subject patentis invalid, unenorceable, or not inringed. Hence, it is much easier or alleged inringers tochallenge the validity o patents, while maintaining their license rights.

In April 2007, the Court went urther in KSR International v. Telefex, raising the bar orpatent holders to prove their inventions are nonobvious. The ruling made many existingpatents more vulnerable to litigation particularly i they represent merely incrementalimprovements or combinations o prior elements and may also make new patents harderto get. In the recent Quantas Computer v. LG Electronics decision, the Court claried theprinciple o patent exhaustion. In its decision, the Court made it more dicult or a patentholder to claim inringement against parties that purchase patented products rom a licenseeand embed them in downstream products.

Finally, as this study goes to press, the Court has agreed to hear the appeal in the mattero Bilski and the PTO concerning whether business methods are patentable subject matterand under what conditions. This decision will be closely watched, as it could overturn adecade o jurisprudence based upon the State Street v. Signature case, wherein the notiono business method patents was given legitimacy.

3PricewaterhouseCoopers


6/24


7/24


In a nutshell:

Annual median damages award has ranged rom $2.2 to $10.6 million, with no discernibletrend since 1995.

Damages awards or NPEs have averaged more than double those or practicing entitiessince 1995.

NPEs have been successul 29 percent o the time overall versus 41 percent or practicingentities, due to the relative lack o success or NPEs at summary judgment; however, bothhave roughly a 2/3 win rate at trial.

The disparity between jury and bench awards has widened and is likely the contributingactor in the signicant increase in use o juries since 1995.

Reasonable royalties continue to be the predominant measure o damages awards.

Alleged inringers increase their trial success rates slightly as plaintis seekingdeclaratory judgment.

While the median time-to-trial has remained airly constant since 1995, signicantvariations exist between jurisdictions.

Certain ederal district courts (particularly Virginia Eastern and Texas Eastern) continue to

be more avorable to patent holders, with shorter time-to-trial, higher success rates, andhigher median damages awards.

Five ederal district courts accounted or 33 percent o all identied decisions involving anNPE as the patent holder.



8/24



Awards or nonpracticing entities are more than double those or practicing entities.

Adjusting or infation using the Consumer Price Index, the annual median damage awardhas ranged rom $2.2 million to $10.6 million, with a median award o $4.4 million over thelast 14 years. In the aggregate, there is no discernable trend over this period.

That said, as shown in chart 2B, a wide variance exists in the damages awarded to NPEsas compared to practicing entities since 2001. The median damages award or patentholders who are NPEs was more than triple the award or practicing entities over the lastseven years. The median was $12 million or NPEs, and $3.4 million or practicing entities.However, rom 1995-2001, the median damages award was about the same or NPEs andpracticing entities, at a little over $5 million.

Chart 2A: Patent holder median damages awarded: 1995 to 2008

Mediandamagesawarded

$0

$12,000,000

$10,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Median damages are adjusted for inflation and represented in US 2008 dollars


9/24

Landmark damages awards continue to make corporate management keenly aware o therisks and rewards or enorcing their patent rights. Since 2005, at least 10 signicant ederaldistrict court decisions have awarded damages exceeding $100 million, as displayed inchart 2C; our o these were to NPEs. While some o these matters are still in the appellateprocess, others have been upheld by the US Court o Appeals or the Federal Circuit.

Chart 2C: Damages Awards Exceeding $100 Million: 2005 to 2008

Year Plainti Deendant Technology Award(in MM)

PracticingEntity

2007 Alcatel-Lucent Microsot MP3 technology $1,538 Yes

2008 Bruce N. SaranM.D.

Boston Scientic Corp. Drug-eluting stents $432 No

2008 Alcatel-Lucent Microsot Data entry technology $368 Yes

2006 Rambus Hynix Memory Chips $307 No

2008 Medtronic Boston Scientic Balloon-dilationcatheters

$250 Yes

2007 DePuy Spine Medtronic Spinal implant devices $226 Yes

2007 C.R. Bard Inc WL Gore & Associates Vascular andstent-grats

$185 Yes

2008 Cornell University Hewlett-Packard Computer processortechnology

$184 No

2006 z4 Technologies Inc Microsot/Autodesk Anti-piracysotware program

$133 No

2005 FreedomWireless, Inc

AT&T Wireless/Alltel Prepaid wirelessservice

$128 Yes

An in-depth discussion 7PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chart 2B: Patent holder median damages awarded:

Nonpracticing entities v. Practicing entities

$5.2 $5.1

$12.0

$3.4

Mediandamag

esawarded(inMM)

$0

$14

$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2

1995-2001 2002-2008

Nonpracticing entities Practicing entities


10/24

In February 2008, in a case tried in Texas Eastern District, a jury awarded Dr. BruceSaran $432 million in damages ater nding Boston Scientic Corporation liable or patentinringement regarding drug-eluting stent technology. This award constitutes one o thelargest damages awards to an NPE and was the largest award in 2008.

The disparity between jury and bench awards has widened and is likely a contributingactor to the signifcant increase in the use o juries over the last decade.

A signicant trend toward jury trials has emerged since the 1980s, with the shit becomingmore evident over the last decade. As shown in Chart 3A, juries decided only 14 percent othe cases with damages awards during the 1980s and 24 percent during the 1990s. In thisdecade, juries have decided 51 percent o the cases with damages awards.



Chart 3A: Use of Bench v. Jury trials by decade

Bench trials Jury trials

24.1%

75.9%

14.4%

85.6%

51.0%49.0%

0%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

20%

30%

10%

1980s 1990s 2000s


11/24

A number o actors contribute to the increased use o juries as the preerred orum orpatent cases. Trial success rates or patent holders are much higher when decided by juriesas compared to bench trials. In act, jury success rates have consistently outperormed theirbench counterparts every year since 1995, as shown in chart 3B.


Chart 3B: Bench v. Jury trials success rates: 1995 to 2008

Bench Jury

0%

100%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

20%

30%

10%

90%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


12/24



$0.9 $1.1

1980s

$3.3

$5.5

1990s

$0.6

$10.1

2000s

Chart 3D: Bench vs Jury trials: median damages

awarded by decade

Bench Jury

$0

$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2Med

iandamagesawarded(inMM)

Chart 3C: Use of Bench v. Jury trials by type

of entity: 1995 to 2008

Bench Jury

59.2%

40.8%

54.9%

45.1%

0%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Nonpracticing entities Practicing entities

In addition, as shown in chart 3C, the increase inlitigation involving NPEs over the last decade may beaecting the increased use o juries. Since 1995, 55percent o trials involving NPEs have been jury trials,as compared to only 41 percent o trials involvingpracticing entities.

In addition to the rate o success at trial, recent awardsby juries have been signicantly greater, running severalmultiples o the amounts awarded by judges. Chart 3Dshows the discrepancy in median awards over the lastthree decades. While jury awards have risen sharply,bench awards have decreased signicantly since thebeginning o 2000. A number o reasons may accountor the decrease in bench awards, including an increasein the number o Abbreviated New Drug Applicationpharmaceutical cases (which do not have damages andare tried by the bench), as well as the possibility thatplaintis with larger envisioned damages may believe

juries will look more avorably upon them than judges;thus, introducing sel-selection bias in the results.

The increase in damages awarded by juries in patentcases may be due to juries reduced sensitivity to large

dollar awards with public disclosures o larger protsand net worth rom major company deendants. Greateroutrage at a nding o liability to punish the inringerrather than merely compensate the patent holder mayalso be a actor in increased damages awards. Sel-selection bias could also play a part, as plaintis maybelieve juries will look more avorably upon them than

judges, especially when seeking large monetary awards.


13/24


Chart 3E indicates that regardless o whether an entity ispracticing, damages awarded rom juries are much greater thanthose awarded rom bench trials. It appears, however, that thediscrepancies in jury awards or NPEs are even higher thanthose or practicing entities.

Reasonable royalties continue to be the predominantmeasure o damages awards.

As shown in chart 4, reasonable royalties are the most requentbasis o damages awards in patent cases and continue tocomprise a greater share. Section 284 o the Federal Code,governing equitable compensation, sets a reasonable royaltyas the minimum level o compensation due to the patent holderrom an inringer. Since NPEs are generally not entitled to lostprots, their results have been excluded rom chart 4.

Lost prots damages are not as prevalent or several reasons:

The complexity and cost o the analysis or determining lostprots is greater than or reasonable royalties. Lost protsmay be quantied based upon specic sales taken by theinringer rom the patent holder or upon an assessment o

particular acts and circumstances in a but or situation.This assessment examines whether there is demand orthe product tied to the patents claims; there is an absenceo acceptable alternate substitutes; the patent holder hasadequate manuacturing and marketing capabilities; andthere is sucient nancial inormation to complete thequantication. Also, market share data is oten required toallocate the inringers sales i the market consists o morethan two participants. Patent holders oten nd the processo supporting such analysis too obtrusive to their operations,or they do not want to risk disclosing proprietary cost andprot inormation especially in light o new requirementsregarding electronic discovery and record retention.


Chart 3E: Bench v. Jury trials: median

damages by entity type: 1995 to 2008

Bench Jury

Mediandamag

esawarded(inMM)

$0.9

$7.4

$0.6

$11.5

$0

$14

$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2

Practicing entities Nonpracticing entities

Chart 4: Composition of damages awards

to practicing entities

Lost profits Reasonable royaltyPrice erosion

6.8%

38.4%

54.8%57.7%

5.8%

36.5%

0%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

1995-2001 2002-2008


14/24

Lost prots can be more dicult to prove. The prolieration o competition in eachUS market sector rom US- and oreign-based businesses provides greater access tosubstitute products. The presence o these alternatives means that even without aninringers products in the market, consumers may not automatically buy the patentholders products. Furthermore, the growing use o specialized distribution channelsor reaching a specic consumer demographic increasingly supports an inringerscontention that its customers are separate and distinct rom those o the patent holder.

NPEs have been successul 29 percent o the time overall, but have a 67 percent winrate at trial.

To understand patent holder success rates or NPEs versus practicing entities since 1995,PwC studied 1,435 nal decisions issued at two stages o the litigation process: summary

judgment (750 decisions) and trial (613 decisions). Dismissals that did not occur at trial orsummary judgment are not included in this breakdown. Chart 5A demonstrates that, overall,NPEs were successul 29 percent o the time versus 41 percent or practicing entities. Thisdierence can be attributed to the relative lack o success or NPEs at summary judgment,as compared to practicing entities. In instances when a nal decision is made at summary

judgment, NPEs are successul only 12 percent o the time, as opposed to 20 percent orpracticing entities. The trial success rates are nearly identical or NPEs and practicing entities

Chart 5A: Patent holder success rates: 1995 to 2008

Practicing entitiesNonpracticing entities

11.9%

40.4%

67.4%65.8%

29.3%

19.9%

0%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Overall Summary judgement Trial




15/24


16/24

Alleged inringers increase their trial success rates when they are plaintis and thepatent holder is an NPE.

Declaratory judgments (where alleged inringer asserts the patents are invalid, unenorce-able, or not inringed by its products) represent 8 percent o all cases identied. Chart 6suggests that since 1995, alleged inringers have had more success in declaratory judgmenttrials against NPEs than versus practicing entities (55 percent versus 41 percent). Allegedinringers have also been somewhat more successul at trial in their more normal posture asdeendants against NPEs than practicing entities (48 percent versus 40 percent).



Chart 6: Alleged infringer win rate at trial: 1995 to 2008

Practicing entitiesNonpracticing entities

54.5%

40.8%

48.1%

40.3%

0%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Infringer as plainti ff Infringer as defendant

Winrate


17/24

While the median time-to-trial has remained airly constant since 1995, signifcantvariations exist by jurisdiction.

Data or time-to-trial was obtained or 436 trials in 65 districts, using the court dockets oreach matter. Time-to-trial was calculated rom the complaint date to the rst day o eitherthe bench or jury trial or each case. In chart 7A, the distribution o overall time-to-trialindicates that 68 percent o cases reached trial three years rom the date the initial complaintwas led.


Chart 7A: Time-to-trial distribution of cases: 1995 to 2008

Number of cases Cumulative % of total

0

180

160 156

40

104

47

36

53

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

5 years0%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%N

umberofcaseswithtime-to-trialdata

Cumulative%o

ftotal


18/24

No marked changes in time-to-trial are noted since 1998. Chart 7B shows that ater adecline rom 1995 to 1998, median time-to-trial has maintained a airly steady durationat just over two years rom the complaint date to trial, even as the volume o cases hasincreased substantially over this time.

Chart 7B: Median time-to-trial: 1995 to 2008

Number of cases Median time-to-trial

Mediantime-to-trial(inyea

rs)

Numberofcases

0 0

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

10

20

30

40

50

60

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008




19/24

Since 1995, however, signicant variations have occurred in the median o time-to-trialacross jurisdictions. To assess the lead time, PwC ocused on the 20 most active districts.

Among these courts, chart 7C summarizes the median time-to-trial rom 1995 to 2008.Based upon the cases identied, Virginia Eastern and Wisconsin Western districts have theshortest time-to-trial.

Certain ederal district courts (particularly Virginia Eastern and Texas Eastern)continue to be more avorable to patent holders, with shorter time-to-trial, highersuccess rates, and higher median damages awards.

Considering median time-to-trial, median damages awarded, and trial win rates, certainjurisdictions emerge as being more avorable venues or patent holders. Chart 8A presentsthe top 20 districts based on an average o their respective categorical rankings or eacho the three statistical measures mentioned above, weighted equally, or decisions rom

19952008.


Chart 7C: Median Time-to-Trial by district: 1995 to 2008

Rank District In years

1 Virginia Eastern District Court 0.88

2 Wisconsin Western District Court 1.01

3 California Southern District Court 1.24

4 Florida Middle District Court 1.71

5 Maryland District Court 1.75

6 Texas Eastern District Court 1.79

7 Kansas District Court 1.89

8 Delaware District Court 1.92

9 Texas Southern District/Bankruptcy Courts 1.99

10 California Central District Court 1.99

11 Ohio Northern District Court 2.05

12 New York Southern District Court 2.18

13 Florida Southern District Court 2.27

14 Michigan Eastern District Court 2.32

15 Minnesota District Court 2.32

16 Texas Northern District Court 2.42

17 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court 2.43

18 Missouri Eastern District Court 2.5219 New Jersey District Court 2.70

20 California Northern District Court 2.72

Overall (all decisions identified) 2.11


20/24



In combining summary judgment and trial decisions, charts 8B and 8C include thosedistricts with greater than 15 cases and rank them according to overall success rates.

Bottom 5 districts Overall success rate Trial success rate

1 Connecticut District Court 10.5% 50.0%

2 Michigan Eastern District Court 20.0% 60.0%

3 Florida Southern District Court 27.3% 35.3%

4 Texas Southern District/Bankruptcy Courts 28.1% 61.5%

5 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court 30.3% 55.6%

Overall (all decisions identified) 38.2% 66.1%

Chart 8C: Bottom 5 districts by overall success ranking: 1995 to 2008

Chart 8B: Top 5 districts by overall success ranking: 1995 to 2008

Top 5 districts Overall success rate Trial success rate

1 Florida Middle District Court 57.9% 76.9%

2 Texas Eastern District Court 51.6% 66.7%

3 Virginia Eastern District Court 48.6% 75.0%

4 California Central District Court 48.3% 69.0%

5 Delaware District Court 47.7% 64.7%

Overall (all decisions identified) 38.2% 66.1%

Chart 8A: District court rankings: 1995 to 2008

Median Overall MedianOverall time-to-trial success damagesrank District (in years) Rank rate Rank awarded Rank

1 Virginia Eastern District Court 0.88 1 48.6% 3 $26,408,116 2

2 Texas Eastern District Court 1.79 4 51.6% 2 $20,411,860 3

3 Delaware District Court 1.92 5 47.7% 5 $13,354,001 5

4 Wisconsin Western District Court 1.01 2 35.5% 9 $4,533,086 8

5 California Central District Court 1.99 7 48.3% 4 $2,901,170 10

6 Florida Middle District Court 1.71 3 57.9% 1 $214,952 18

7 Texas Southern District/Bankruptcy Courts 1.99 6 28.1% 17 $10,576,567 6

8 New Jersey District Court 2.70 15 32.1% 12 $17,096,347 4

9 Colorado District Court 2.99 17 31.3% 15 $56,222,734 110 Texas Northern District Court 2.42 13 46.7% 6 $1,682,566 15

10 Ohio Northern District Court 2.05 8 43.8% 7 $103,611 19

12 California Northern District Court 2.72 16 34.7% 10 $4,271,706 9

12 New York Southern District Court 2.18 9 32.1% 12 $2,012,150 14

14 Illinois Northern District Court 3.50 18 33.9% 11 $4,720,247 7

15 Minnesota District Court 2.32 12 31.6% 14 $2,272,285 12

15 Massachusetts District Court 3.72 19 37.3% 8 $2,756,016 11

17 Florida Southern District Court 2.27 10 27.3% 18 $2,071,306 13

18 Michigan Eastern District Court 2.32 11 20.0% 19 $688,327 16

19 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court 2.43 14 30.3% 16 $74,860 20

20 Connecticut District Court 4.66 20 10.5% 20 $529,827 17

Overall (all decisions identified) 2.11 38.2% $4,420,956

Median damages are adjusted for inflation and represented in 2008 US dollars.

The ranking for these courts are based on their relative ranking for each of the remaining statistical measures.


21/24

33 percent o all identifed NPE decisions were concentrated in fve ederaldistrict courts

As depicted in chart 9, cases with an NPE as the patent holder were concentrated in a relativsmall number o key districts. The top ve districts with the most identied decisions accounor 33 percent o all identied NPE cases. The top 10 districts accounted or nearly 50 perceo all identied decisions. O particular interest is the act that the two districts with the mostidentied NPE decisions, Illinois Northern and New York Southern, have much lower overallsuccess rates or NPEs. Meanwhile, Delaware, which has the lowest percentage o identieddecisions where the patent holder is an NPE, has an overall success rate or NPEs o 64 perctrailing only Florida Middle with an overall success rate o 67 percent among identied decisrom 1995 to 2008.


Chart 9: District Courts with Most Identied Decisions with NPE as Patent Holder: 1995 to 2008

District

Totalidentifeddecisions

% o totalidentifeddecisions

Overallsuccess

rate

Illinois Northern District Court 24 19.8% 16.7%

New York Southern District Court 21 19.8% 19.0%

Texas Eastern District Court 19 29.7% 42.1%

Caliornia Northern District Court 15 15.3% 26.7%

Delaware District Court 14 10.6% 64.3%

Massachusetts District Court 12 20.3% 25.0%

Florida Southern District Court 11 33.3% 27.3%

Caliornia Central District Court 10 17.2% 50.0%

Pennsylvania Eastern District Court 7 21.2% 14.3%

Florida Middle District Court 6 31.6% 66.7%

Kansas District Court 6 40.0% 16.7%

Minnesota District Court 6 15.8% 50.0%

Texas Northern District Court 6 20.0% 33.3%

DC District Court 6 46.2% 33.3%

Colorado District Court 5 31.3% 40.0%

Connecticut District Court 5 26.3% 0.0%

Virginia Eastern District Court 5 14.3% 60.0%

Wisconsin Western District Court 5 16.1% 0.0%

All Identifed Decisions 283 19.7%

What this means or your business


22/24


23/24

2009 Patent litigation study 21PricewaterhouseCoopers

Aron Levko is a recently retired partner rom the Forensics Services practice oPricewaterhouseCoopers, located in Chicago. Mr. Levko ounded this study, whichis in its th year o publication. He has extensive experience working with attorneys,entrepreneurs, and corporate executives in intellectual property litigation, valuation, andmanagement activities in a broad range o industries. He also has extensive testimonyexperience. His past work also includes being a plant controller and a car product plannerwith major industrial manuacturers. Mr. Levko has a BSE degree in industrial engineeringrom the University o Michigan and an MBA in nance rom the University o Chicago. Heis an accredited senior appraiser, certied licensing proessional, certied managementconsultant, and certied production and inventory control manager.

Chris Barry is a partner in the Forensic Services practice o PricewaterhouseCoopers,located in Boston, where he has worked or 25 years. Mr. Barry has been a contributor tothis study in recent years, and has assumed ongoing responsibility or it upon Mr. Levkosretirement. Beore joining PricewaterhouseCoopers, he gained several years auditingexperience with other major CPA rms. Mr. Barry earned a BA in accounting rom Franklin& Marshall College and an MBA rom the University o Caliornia at Berkeley, and is aCPA, holding the AICPA credential o certied in nancial orensics. Mr. Barry has workedextensively in the intellectual property eld, including damage quantication and testimonyin inringement actions, determining reasonable royalty rates, valuing IP or transactionpurposes, and perorming royalty audits or licensors with running rate agreements. He hastestied at trial roughly 50 times as an expert witness.

Vincent Torres is a director in the Advisory Services practice o PricewaterhouseCoopers

Chicago oce. Mr. Torres has over 10 years o management consulting experience advisingclients on a broad range o strategy execution opportunities and challenges related toproduct and customer pricing and protability, competitive positioning, and emergingbusiness models. He specializes in matters involving new technologies and business modelsin the technology and entertainment and media industries, and in assessing value driversin decisions involving intellectual assets. Over the years, Mr. Torres has also worked withcorporate executives, entrepreneurs, and lawyers in support o commercial transactions,assessing damages in commercial litigation disputes, and evaluating and monitoring riskswith respect to intellectual asset management processes. Additionally, Mr. Torres has experttestimony experience. Mr. Torres holds a BA in economics rom Duke University and an MBArom the Fuqua School o Business at Duke University.

Robert Marvin is a manager in PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services practice

in Chicago, specializing in the Business Analytics & Strategy and Intellectual AssetManagement practices. Mr. Marvin has over six years o management consulting experiencein the areas o business model analytics and strategy and intellectual property and corporatevaluations, transactions, and commercial disputes. Mr. Marvins clients have includedFortune 500 corporations, large private corporations, and start-ups seeking advice onbusiness strategies, and support during intellectual property licensing, commercial disputes,asset acquisition/divestiture, and nancing transactions. Mr. Marvin graduated romMichigan State University with a BA in nance.

About the authors


24/24

pwc.com/us/orensics

2009 Patent Litigation Study

Documents

Transcript of 2009 Patent Litigation Study