Audio and video editing software patent infringement litigation
Audio and video editing software patent infringement litigation
Background
End-client was a plaintiff in a cross-border patent infringement litigation of their flagship product
Project Details
01.
Challenge
Understand and 'feature-map' the product for both client and defendant
Re-review over 40K files tagged responsive by a prior review team
Validate files responsive only to the infringed application features including files with third party source code
More than 25 file types (images, emails, text, pdfs, json, etc.) including 7 programming languages (Python, C, C++, Java, PHP, Javascript, Angular)
01.
Challenge
Understand and 'feature-map' the product for both client and defendant
Re-review over 40K files tagged responsive by a prior review team
Validate files responsive only to the infringed application features including files with third party source code
More than 25 file types (images, emails, text, pdfs, json, etc.) including 7 programming languages (Python, C, C++, Java, PHP, Javascript, Angular)
01.
Challenge
Understand and 'feature-map' the product for both client and defendant
Re-review over 40K files tagged responsive by a prior review team
Validate files responsive only to the infringed application features including files with third party source code
More than 25 file types (images, emails, text, pdfs, json, etc.) including 7 programming languages (Python, C, C++, Java, PHP, Javascript, Angular)
02.
Our Solution
Cross-functional expert team including attorneys, IP experts and tech specialists built a customized workflow and performed the review
Created cohorts based on technology expertise and segregated dataset based on:
file extensions with high probability of source codes
programming languages
Assessed code structure and functions, and segregated relevant source code applicable for UI or backend
Deployed IDEs to open files with technical issues programming languages
Assessed codes for use of third-party and open-source code from infringement perspective
Segregated open-source code for videos and marked them as non-responsive
Reviewed files for third-party source code for AEO tag
Identified libraries with external dependencies/algorithms and incorporated without proper licensing or attribution
02.
Our Solution
Cross-functional expert team including attorneys, IP experts and tech specialists built a customized workflow and performed the review
Created cohorts based on technology expertise and segregated dataset based on:
file extensions with high probability of source codes
programming languages
Assessed code structure and functions, and segregated relevant source code applicable for UI or backend
Deployed IDEs to open files with technical issues programming languages
Assessed codes for use of third-party and open-source code from infringement perspective
Segregated open-source code for videos and marked them as non-responsive
Reviewed files for third-party source code for AEO tag
Identified libraries with external dependencies/algorithms and incorporated without proper licensing or attribution
02.
Our Solution
Cross-functional expert team including attorneys, IP experts and tech specialists built a customized workflow and performed the review
Created cohorts based on technology expertise and segregated dataset based on:
file extensions with high probability of source codes
programming languages
Assessed code structure and functions, and segregated relevant source code applicable for UI or backend
Deployed IDEs to open files with technical issues programming languages
Assessed codes for use of third-party and open-source code from infringement perspective
Segregated open-source code for videos and marked them as non-responsive
Reviewed files for third-party source code for AEO tag
Identified libraries with external dependencies/algorithms and incorporated without proper licensing or attribution
03.
Outcome
Appropriately tagged 40K+ files
Identified 11.5K files which contained disputed application code
70% reduction of overall responsive universe of documents - identified c. 30k files which were not part of the code in litigation but were related to supporting features of the application
Estimated cost saving of 80% of attorneys’ time and resources
Identified features related to user interface, potentially a part of the infringed code
03.
Outcome
Appropriately tagged 40K+ files
Identified 11.5K files which contained disputed application code
70% reduction of overall responsive universe of documents - identified c. 30k files which were not part of the code in litigation but were related to supporting features of the application
Estimated cost saving of 80% of attorneys’ time and resources
Identified features related to user interface, potentially a part of the infringed code
03.
Outcome
Appropriately tagged 40K+ files
Identified 11.5K files which contained disputed application code
70% reduction of overall responsive universe of documents - identified c. 30k files which were not part of the code in litigation but were related to supporting features of the application
Estimated cost saving of 80% of attorneys’ time and resources
Identified features related to user interface, potentially a part of the infringed code
Facts & Figures
10M
Lines of code
10M
Lines of code
10M
Lines of code
40k+
Files
40k+
Files
40k+
Files
25
File types
25
File types
25
File types
7
Programming languages
7
Programming languages
7
Programming languages
70%
Non-relevant files identified
70%
Non-relevant files identified
80%
Cost savings
80%
Cost savings
Facts & Figures
10M
Lines of code
40k+
Files
25
File types
7
Programming languages
70%
Non-relevant files identified
80%
Cost savings
Knowledge Centre
Case Studies
Legal Tech
MVP Launch for Cybersecurity Startup
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Optimizing Shared Drive Organization for Enhanced eDiscovery
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Portfolio Management for Emerging Technology Organization
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Healthcare Patent Evaluation
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Project Management
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Networking Opportunity Assessment
Knowledge Centre
Case Studies
Legal Tech
MVP Launch for Cybersecurity Startup
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Optimizing Shared Drive Organization for Enhanced eDiscovery
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Portfolio Management for Emerging Technology Organization
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Healthcare Patent Evaluation
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Project Management
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Networking Opportunity Assessment
Knowledge Centre
Case Studies
Legal Tech
MVP Launch for Cybersecurity Startup
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Optimizing Shared Drive Organization for Enhanced eDiscovery
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Portfolio Management for Emerging Technology Organization
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Healthcare Patent Evaluation
Case Studies
eDiscovery+ Solutions
Project Management
Case Studies
Intellectual Asset Management
Networking Opportunity Assessment
United Kingdom
lota Analytics UK Limited
4 King's Bench Walk,
London EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom
India
lota Analytics Private Limited 1-8 Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh - 160003 India
United States
Iota Analytics Inc.
8800 Roswell Road, Bldg. C,
Suite 230, Atlanta, GA, 30350
United States
© 2024 Iota Analytics. All rights reserved.
United Kingdom
lota Analytics UK Limited
4 King's Bench Walk,
London EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom
India
lota Analytics Private Limited 1-8 Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh - 160003 India
United States
Iota Analytics Inc.
8800 Roswell Road, Bldg. C,
Suite 230, Atlanta, GA, 30350
United States
© 2024 Iota Analytics. All rights reserved.
United Kingdom
lota Analytics UK Limited
4 King's Bench Walk,
London EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom
India
lota Analytics Private Limited 1-8 Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh - 160003 India
United States
Iota Analytics Inc.
8800 Roswell Road, Bldg. C,
Suite 230, Atlanta, GA, 30350
United States
© 2024 Iota Analytics. All rights reserved.