---
title: "Case Outcomes"
description: "How Docket Navigator assigns Accusation Outcomes and Case Outcomes in patent cases, including win and loss rules, mixed results, settlements, appeals, and where to find the results."
---

import { Card, CardGrid } from '@astrojs/starlight/components';
import AccusationsMap from '../../../components/AccusationsMap.astro';

Docket Navigator classifies patent litigation wins and losses at the **accusation** level, then rolls those results into a **Case Outcome**. A single case can contain wins, losses, settlements, and non-merits dismissals, so the case-level label describes the mix of resolved accusations rather than a single verdict.

This page explains how accusations are counted, when an outcome is entered, how the five Case Outcome classifications are applied, and where the results appear in Docket Navigator.

See [Terminology](/terminology/) for the short definitions and [Scope of Data](/scope/) for the years and forums covered.

## What are accusations?

An **accusation** is similar to a cause of action or a claim for relief. Docket Navigator records each accusation as three components:

1. the **Patentee**, the party that claims a right to enforce the patent;
2. the **patent number** asserted or challenged;
3. the **Patent Challenger**, the party accused of infringement or challenging the patent's validity or enforceability.

One party asserting one patent against one other party is one accusation:

<table class="glossary-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Patent</th>
      <th>Patent Challenger</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Eighth Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,418</td>
      <td>Sophos Group PLC</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

When a case has multiple parties or patents, each unique combination is a separate accusation. One Patentee asserting three patents against two Patent Challengers produces six accusations:

<table class="glossary-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Patent</th>
      <th>Patent Challenger</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

Multiple claims involving the same parties and patent, such as an infringement claim and a declaratory judgment counterclaim of invalidity, count as a single accusation. In a PTAB proceeding, each challenge to the patentability of a patent counts as an accusation.

## Why not plaintiff and defendant?

Plaintiff and defendant do not map cleanly onto patent roles.

In U.S. district court cases, plaintiffs are often, but not always, Patentees. Declaratory judgment plaintiffs are Patent Challengers, and the defendants in those cases are Patentees. Counterclaims of infringement can make a defendant both Patent Challenger and Patentee. PTAB and ITC proceedings also use different party labels.

Patentee and Patent Challenger keep the same roles across district court, ITC, and PTAB cases.

## Accusation outcomes

An **Accusation Outcome** is entered when the accusation has been resolved. Outcomes indicate whether the accusation was resolved in the Patent Challenger's favor, the Patentee's favor, by settlement, or in a non-merits decision.

Using the six-accusation example above, the results might look like this after liability is decided:

<table class="glossary-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Patent</th>
      <th>Patent Challenger</th>
      <th>Outcome</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Patentee Won</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Patent Challenger Won</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Non-Merits Dismissal</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

That mix is why Docket Navigator does not treat "who won the case" as a single question. Some accusations settled, one was won by the Patentee, one by the Patent Challenger, and one was dismissed on non-merits grounds.

## When outcomes are entered

In U.S. district courts, an outcome is assigned once the court determines liability. Liability has three elements:

1. an act of infringement
2. of a valid patent
3. that is enforceable

If all three elements are resolved in the Patentee's favor, liability has been established. If one or more elements are resolved against the Patentee, nonliability has been established.

If no element has been resolved against the Patentee and any one of the elements remains open and disputed, there has not been a determination of liability and that accusation remains unresolved.

In ITC investigations, outcomes are entered when the agency determines whether a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 occurred. In PTAB proceedings, the outcome is the resolution of the accusation with respect to patentability of the challenged patent.

Determining when an accusation has an outcome is not always obvious. Courts sometimes refuse to decide remaining issues after resolving one element against the Patentee:

> MEMO ENDORSED ORDER terminating 708 Motion to Amend/Correct. ENDORSEMENT:
>
> 1. There is no need for the court to read the issue of obviousness because I have already invalidated the patent on other grounds. I have adjudicated every claim — I have invalidated the patents. They are no longer valid patents. Nothing requires me to decide whether an Invalid patent is invalid on every asserted ground.
> 2. You cannot infringe an invalid patent. There is nothing to infringe. I would think that was obvious.
>
> I refuse to "pretend" that there is a valid patent to infringe and make findings as though there were one. In fact, I am DONE making findings.
>
> If anyone thinks the judgment needs to be amended, submit away.
>
> (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 9/16/2020)
>
> *Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al*, SDNY-1-17-cv-09922, #710

## Defining outcomes

<CardGrid>

<Card title="Patentee win">

The Patentee establishes liability: infringement of a valid, enforceable patent.

</Card>

<Card title="Patent Challenger win">

The Patent Challenger establishes that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.

</Card>

<Card title="Non-merits dismissal">

The accusation is dismissed on procedural grounds so that infringement, validity, or enforceability is never reached. Common examples include Rule 12 motions.

</Card>

<Card title="Settled/voluntarily dismissed">

The parties settle, or a component of an accusation is voluntarily withdrawn or dropped, and that decision was not prompted by an unfavorable ruling.

</Card>

</CardGrid>

## Common outcome scenarios

| Essence of court or agency order | Has an outcome occurred? |
| --- | --- |
| The Patent Challenger infringed, but other defenses such as invalidity or enforceability (laches, equitable estoppel, inequitable conduct, and similar defenses) remain unresolved. | No. The court has not resolved validity or enforceability. The Patentee has won on one element (infringement) but still has two to go. |
| The Patent Challenger's defenses fail, but infringement remains unresolved. | No. The second or third elements have been resolved, or partially resolved, in the Patentee's favor, but the first element has not been determined. |
| The Patent Challenger does not infringe. | Yes. One element was resolved in the Patent Challenger's favor. |
| The asserted claims of the patent are invalid. | Yes. One element was resolved in the Patent Challenger's favor. |
| The patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. | Yes. One element was resolved in the Patent Challenger's favor. |
| The court determines infringement, validity, and enforceability (or the defenses were not asserted) in a single order or a series of orders. | Yes. All elements were resolved in the Patentee's favor or were not disputed by the Patent Challenger. |

## Appeals

The outcomes above reflect the determination of accusations by a U.S. district court, the ITC, or the PTAB. If an outcome is appealed, Docket Navigator records a separate appellate outcome. Further appeal (en banc review or a petition to the Supreme Court) or remand produces additional outcomes so the progression at each stage can be shown.

Once appeals and post-appeal proceedings are complete, the same accusations might look like this:

<table class="glossary-table outcomes-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th colspan="3">Accusations</th>
      <th colspan="3">Outcomes</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Patent</th>
      <th>Patent Challenger</th>
      <th>USDC</th>
      <th>CAFC</th>
      <th>Remand</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>10,503,419</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Patentee Won</td>
      <td>Affirmed</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>8,664,924</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Patent Challenger Won</td>
      <td>Reversed and remanded</td>
      <td>Patentee Won</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Group PLC</td>
      <td>Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5th Street Solutions LLC</td>
      <td>7,600,661</td>
      <td>Poly Limited</td>
      <td>Non-Merits Dismissal</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
      <td>N/A</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

:::caution[Appeals]
Appellate and post-appellate outcomes are still being processed and are not yet viewable. The Case Outcomes shown in search results and charts are the original lower-court outcomes. If a 12(b)(6) dismissal is later reversed and the case settles, the 12(b)(6) outcome is still the one counted. See [Scope of Data](/scope/).
:::

## Case outcomes

**Case Outcome** is a classification of the mix of Accusation Outcomes in a case. Docket Navigator assigns one of five labels after every accusation in the case is resolved:

- **Patentee Win:** the case has only Patentee Win accusation outcomes, or Patentee Win outcomes mixed with settled outcomes.
- **Patent Challenger Win:** the case has only Patent Challenger Win accusation outcomes, or Patent Challenger Win outcomes mixed with settled outcomes.
- **Non-Merits Dismissal:** the case has only Non-Merits Dismissal accusation outcomes, or Non-Merits Dismissal outcomes mixed with settled outcomes.
- **Mixed:** the case has a combination of the merits or non-merits types above.
- **Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed:** every accusation is settled or voluntarily dismissed.

For ITC cases, Case Outcomes are derived from Accusation Outcomes collected from the ITC. For PTAB cases, they are derived from the Board's patentability findings or from institution denial.

The following examples show how accusation-level results become a Case Outcome:

<table class="glossary-table outcomes-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Case</th>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Asserted Patent</th>
      <th>Patent Challenger</th>
      <th>Accusation Outcome</th>
      <th>Case Outcome</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="4">Case 1</td>
      <td rowspan="4">Company A</td>
      <td rowspan="2">Patent Z</td>
      <td>Company B</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
      <td rowspan="4">Mixed</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company C</td>
      <td>Patent Challenger Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="2">Patent Y</td>
      <td>Company B</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company C</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="3">Case 2</td>
      <td rowspan="3">Company D</td>
      <td rowspan="3">Patent X</td>
      <td>Company E</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
      <td rowspan="3">Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company F</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company G</td>
      <td>Settled</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="2">Case 3</td>
      <td rowspan="2">Company D</td>
      <td rowspan="2">Patent W</td>
      <td>Company H</td>
      <td>Non-Merits Dismissal</td>
      <td rowspan="2">Non-Merits Dismissal</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company I</td>
      <td>Settled</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

Firm Outcomes and Party Outcomes use the same five classifications, applied to the accusations associated with that firm or party. If the same firm or party was both Patentee and Patent Challenger in the same case, Docket Navigator records a separate outcome for each role.

## Real-life examples

### Patentee win

In *Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH et al v. Slayback Pharma LLC*, DDE-1-18-cv-00117, Teva and its affiliates asserted one patent against Slayback, for a total of three accusations. The court found the patent not invalid and infringed, so the Case Outcome is a Patentee win.

| Patentee | Patent | Patent Challenger | Outcome | Type of Document | Case filing date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Cephalon, Inc. | 9,572,887 | Slayback Pharma LLC | Patentee Won | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | Jan. 19, 2018 |
| Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 9,572,887 | Slayback Pharma LLC | Patentee Won | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | Jan. 19, 2018 |
| Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH | 9,572,887 | Slayback Pharma LLC | Patentee Won | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | Jan. 19, 2018 |

### Patent Challenger win

In the consolidated action *Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy*, EDTX-2-17-cv-00044, Nokia was the winner because every claim against it was decided by summary judgment of noninfringement.

| Patentee | Patent | Patent Challenger | Outcome | Type of Document | Case filing date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 8,977,284 | Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 8,977,284 | Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC n/k/a Nokia of America Corporation | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,510,320 | Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,510,320 | Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC n/k/a Nokia of America Corporation | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,642,024 | Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,642,024 | Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC n/k/a Nokia of America Corporation | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Noninfringement | Jan. 12, 2017 |

### Mixed

In *United Services Automobile Association v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.*, EDTX-2-18-cv-00366, USAA asserted five patents against Wells Fargo. USAA won on two patents, lost on two, and settled one. That mix produces a Mixed Case Outcome.

| Patentee | Patent | Patent Challenger | Outcome | Type of Document | Case filing date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| United Services Automobile Association | 10,013,605 | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | Patentee Won | Judgment (Judge) | Aug. 17, 2018 |
| United Services Automobile Association | 10,013,681 | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | Patentee Won | Judgment (Judge) | Aug. 17, 2018 |
| United Services Automobile Association | 8,392,332 | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Patent Invalid | Aug. 17, 2018 |
| United Services Automobile Association | 8,708,227 | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed | Motion to Dismiss - Voluntary Dismissal (FRCP 41(a)) | Aug. 17, 2018 |
| United Services Automobile Association | 9,224,136 | Wells Fargo Bank, NA | Patent Challenger Won | Motion for Summary Judgment -- Patent Not Invalid | Aug. 17, 2018 |

### Settled

In the same Traxcell consolidation, *Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA Inc.*, EDTX-2-17-cv-00042, Huawei settled before the remaining cases produced wins and losses. Huawei's case is classified as Settled even though other cases in the consolidation were not.

| Patentee | Patent | Patent Challenger | Outcome | Type of Document | Case filing date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 8,977,284 | Huawei Technologies USA Inc. | Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed | Motion to Dismiss - Voluntary Dismissal (FRCP 41(a)) | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,510,320 | Huawei Technologies USA Inc. | Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed | Motion to Dismiss - Voluntary Dismissal (FRCP 41(a)) | Jan. 12, 2017 |
| Traxcell Technologies, LLC | 9,642,024 | Huawei Technologies USA Inc. | Settled/Voluntarily Dismissed | Motion to Dismiss - Voluntary Dismissal (FRCP 41(a)) | Jan. 12, 2017 |

## Finding outcomes in Docket Navigator

### When viewing a case

Opening a case name in Docket Navigator, or in a Docket Navigator email, opens the [Case Profile](/profiles/case/). The Summary tab shows both the Case Outcome and the underlying Accusation Outcomes.

![Case Profile Summary tab showing This Case's Outcome and party-level accusation outcomes](/help-images/outcomes/case-profile-summary.png)

### When viewing a patent

Opening a patent number opens the [Patent Profile](/profiles/patent/). The Summary tab shows overall patent performance and aggregated outcomes for the parties involved in that patent's accusations.

![Patent Profile Summary tab showing unsuccessfully litigated patent performance and party outcomes](/help-images/outcomes/patent-profile-summary.png)

### When comparing law firms

A Firm Comparison report includes an Outcomes Comparison view of Case Outcomes for the selected firms. You can look at Patentee or Patent Challenger representation, Technology Centers, ANDA cases, and other lenses. The underlying Case Outcomes for each firm are in the same folder.

See [Firm Performance](/analytics/rankings/firm-performance/) for the ranked win-rate view of firm results.

![Firm Comparison Outcomes Comparison tab with Case Outcomes when representing Patent Challengers](/help-images/outcomes/firm-comparison-outcomes.png)

The Year in Review also ranks firms by win rate. The **Top Firms by Win Rate** tab orders firms by wins versus losses. By default, that rate uses Case Outcomes for the parties the firms represented. The toggles on the page can change the calculation, including a minimum number of Case Outcomes so firms with very few data points do not dominate the list.

![Year in Review Top Firms by Win Rate chart for Patent Challenger representation](/help-images/outcomes/year-in-review-win-rate.png)

### When comparing courts or judges

A Court & Judge Comparison report uses the Outcomes Comparison tab to show whether selected courts or judges have historically favored Patentees or Patent Challengers. The same view can be limited by Technology Center, ANDA status, and other criteria.

See [Court Comparison](/analytics/comparison-reports/court-comparison/) and [Judge Comparison](/analytics/comparison-reports/judge-comparison/).

![Court and Judge Comparison Outcomes tab with Case Outcomes for selected judges, USDC, PTAB, and ITC](/help-images/outcomes/court-judge-comparison-outcomes.png)

## Judgment calls and exceptions

The model stops at the patent level. It does not distinguish whether individual claims of a patent were won or lost.

Typically, if at least one claim of a patent is found invalid, that is a loss for the Patentee even if the court did not analyze other claims. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and a patent that loses a claim in a proceeding has lost value. That policy is published so a Patentee-loss classification can be explained when someone disagrees with it.

There are exceptions. If one claim is found invalid, but other claims of the same patent are found not invalid and infringed, that is a win for the Patentee even though one claim was lost.

PTAB cases are tracked at the claim level. If some claims are found unpatentable and others are not, the Case Outcome is Mixed. When the PTAB allows the Patentee to amend one or more challenged claims, that decision is recorded in PTAB-specific outcomes.

### Special cases

**What happens when the parties are each asserting their own patents against each other?**

Parties can be both Patentee and Patent Challenger when they assert their own patents and challenge the opponent's patents. The Case Outcome is Mixed unless every accusation is settled.

**What happens when the parties voluntarily dismiss their claims because of an unfavorable ruling in a related case?**

A common defense is to file a related claim in another forum, such as the PTAB, and ask that the original case be stayed. If the court grants the stay and the related proceeding is resolved in a way that favors one side, that resolution becomes the Case Outcome in the original case as well. The same rule applies when parties agree to be bound by a decision in a related case, including rulings in the ITC, the CAFC, or the USPTO.

**What happens when the parties voluntarily dismiss their claims because of an unfavorable ruling in the same case?**

If the dismissal document makes it clear that a prior unfavorable ruling is the basis for the dismissal, the case is classified as a win or loss even if the motion is styled as a Rule 41 dismissal. A common example is a stipulated dismissal after claim construction.

## How accusations are counted

<AccusationsMap />

An accusation is a request for relief whose resolution could determine infringement, validity, or enforceability. One plaintiff, one patent, and one defendant produce one accusation. One plaintiff, one patent, and three defendants produce three accusations. One plaintiff, three patents, and three defendants produce nine accusations.

Docket Navigator records each accusation as a Patentee name, a Patent Challenger name, the patent being asserted or challenged, and the Accusation Outcome.

<table class="glossary-table">
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th colspan="3">Patent accusation</th>
      <th>Accusation Outcome</th>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <th>Patentee</th>
      <th>Asserted Patent</th>
      <th>Accused Infringer/Patent Challenger</th>
      <th>Result</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Company A</td>
      <td>Patent X</td>
      <td>Company B</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company A</td>
      <td>Patent X</td>
      <td>Company C</td>
      <td>Accused Infringer Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company A</td>
      <td>Patent Y</td>
      <td>Company B</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Company A</td>
      <td>Patent Y</td>
      <td>Company C</td>
      <td>Patentee Win</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>

:::note
Interpret any outcome figure in the library where you are working, and against the filters that produced it. The same Case Outcome label can cover a single-patent case or a large consolidation. Use the underlying Accusation Outcomes when the mix of results matters.
:::