Big data, big trademark questions

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Big data, big trademark questions

In an INTA Annual Meeting session yesterday, panelists demonstrated how trademark practitioners—particularly litigators—can use big data and analytics tools to grow their practices, provide fact-based predictions to clients and streamline the legal research process.

Daniel Lewis of Ravel Law, Ian C. Ballon of Greenberg Traurig, Darren Schleicher of Lex Machina and Alex Butler of Bloomberg BNA contributed the perspectives of both data analysts and litigators.

Massive databases such as PACER and LexisNexis catalogue comprehensive records and statistics of cases, but this volume of information can be unwieldly, requiring practitioners and their teams to spend many hours combing through records to manually find and analyze relevant data. However, harnessing this information through analytics tools can be useful at every stage of a case.

As attorneys and law firm business developers formulate strategies to grow their businesses, data can provide insights into “who are these companies using, who has a good track record, then drill down into the actual cases and dockets that are interesting to see changes trends over time,” said Butler. In-house counsel, he said, can also use this data to guide their choice of outside counsel, based on the past performances of firms handling matters similar to what they expect to encounter.

Data allows attorneys to demonstrate their expertise on various judges and venues, with specific regard to the client’s industry and the nature of the case at hand. Instead of providing anecdotal descriptions about the speed of a venue, or their personal impression of a judge, data gives attorneys an opportunity to prove that they know what they are talking about. Lex Machina, a legal analytics company owned by LexisNexis, provides features such as a timeline predictor, which, depending on the stipulations a user enters, will return visualizations for the average duration of a case of the specified nature.

Even a specific judge’s decisions have become far more predictable through data analytics. Lewis said that the tool analyzes patterns of language used by judges, so that litigators can see “what’s resonated with the judge before, and how can you tailor your argument to grab them.”

This and other insights accessible through analytics could theoretically be mined manually, but that process is made far more efficient through technological tools. These facts still require interpretation, but analytics tools are “exploratory”: they should not be seen as “replacing human reasoning, but as supplementing it with data,” said Lewis. 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article