LexDana
Sign inRequest access
Case Studies

What attorneys actually use LexDana for.

Concrete stories of patent attorneys, in-house IP teams, and IP investors using LexDana to answer the questions that actually move a matter forward. Organized by the question being asked, not by the tool being used.

Scope

What LexDana covers today — and what’s coming.

Available today
  • Patent ProsecutionUSPTO PAIR analytics + rankings
  • PTABIPR / PGR / CBM analytics
  • ITC Section 337Investigation analytics + rankings
  • TrademarkProsecution rankings
Coming 2026
  • Claim Lifecycle ViewCross-forum claim meaning, prosecution disclaimers
  • Patent LitigationDistrict court analytics + rankings
  • Federal CircuitAppellate analytics + rankings
  • PTAB RankingsFirm & attorney rankings
Coming 2027
  • Hatch-Waxman / ANDABrand and generic strategy analytics
  • Generic launch riskPre-launch IP modeling
  • ANDA RankingsBrand-side & generic-side rankings
LiveBD & Pitching LiveOutside Counsel Selection LivePortfolio & Diligence ComingLitigation Strategy ComingHatch-Waxman
Category 01

Business Development & Pitching.

Partners and BD teams use LexDana to win RFPs, benchmark performance, and find market opportunities — with data that’s independently verifiable.

BD & Pitching Live

A 25-attorney IP boutique out-pitched the AmLaw-50 incumbent.

Patent prosecution partner · mid-sized IP boutique · Fortune 500 RFP

The question

“How does our prosecution performance compare to [the incumbent firm] in the client’s three core technology areas?”

What LexDana showed

Across the relevant art units, the boutique had an 18% higher allowance rate, 2.1 fewer office actions per allowance, and 14% shorter median pendency versus the incumbent — with the underlying USPTO PAIR records available for the client to audit.

The decision

The boutique won the engagement. The LexDana benchmark slide is now standard in their pitch deck for any RFP that names an incumbent firm.

Patent prosecution analytics Rankings USPTO PAIR
BD & Pitching Live

Quarterly market intel that actually drives partner BD calls.

Equity partner · AmLaw 100 IP group · quarterly BD planning

The question

“Top 50 applicants in semiconductors, AI, and biopharma by filing volume over five years — with YoY change and their current outside counsel.”

What LexDana showed

Three of the partner’s top-5 BD targets were increasing filing volume YoY, but their current outside counsel were in the bottom quartile for the relevant art units — a specific, defensible pitch angle.

The decision

The partner reached out to all three with a tailored data-backed pitch. Two new client conversations opened in the quarter.

Market intelligence Rankings Competitive analysis
Category 02

Outside Counsel Selection.

In-house IP leaders use LexDana to evaluate, compare, and select outside counsel based on performance signals — not just referrals.

Outside Counsel Live

A VP IP consolidated outside counsel — with the data to back it up.

VP IP · Fortune 500 semiconductor company · annual outside-counsel review

The question

“How do my four prosecution firms compare to peer firms on allowance rate, pendency, and office actions in my three core art units?”

What LexDana showed

Two firms ranked below the 50th percentile in the relevant art units. One was in the top quartile across all three. The fourth was mid-pack but had the worst RCE rate of the four.

The decision

Work consolidated with the top-quartile firm. Rate renegotiation with the other two led to 11% blended cost savings. The fourth firm was given a 12-month performance benchmark.

Rankings Patent prosecution analytics In-house IP
Outside Counsel Live

Picking PTAB counsel from data, not from a referral chain.

General Counsel · mid-cap software company · $200M exposure

The question

“Which firms have the highest IPR institution rate in this tech area, adjusted for petitioner-side cases only?”

What LexDana showed

A ranked list of the top 12 petitioner-side firms by institution rate in the relevant art units, with case mix, FWD outcomes, and Fintiv-denial rate broken out for each. Three names the GC hadn’t considered led the list.

The decision

GC ran a short bake-off with the top three. Engaged the firm with the highest case-mix-adjusted institution rate. Rankings cited in the board memo justifying the selection.

PTAB analytics Rankings Counsel selection
Category 03

Portfolio Strategy & IP Diligence.

M&A teams, IP investors, and in-house portfolio leaders use LexDana to map exposure, evaluate risk, and make budget decisions — with cross-forum context.

Diligence Live

PE diligence: checking the target’s PTAB and ITC profile before signing.

PE deal team · mid-market growth fund · semiconductor acquisition

The question

“What is the target’s patent prosecution profile, PTAB challenge history, and ITC §337 involvement over the last five years — and how does its outside counsel compare to peer firms?”

What LexDana showed

Target had received 6 IPR petitions in five years (three instituted, two reaching FWD with unpatentable findings). Respondent in one ITC §337 investigation (settled). Its primary prosecution counsel ranked in the bottom quartile for allowance rate in the target’s main art units, with pendency 23% above the industry median.

The decision

Valuation adjusted down based on PTAB exposure and the prosecution-counsel underperformance. Post-close, outside counsel was transitioned to a top-quartile firm using the rankings. Deal closed at the adjusted price.

PTAB analytics ITC analytics Patent prosecution analytics Rankings
Portfolio Live

A biotech IP director found a buried prosecution problem before the budget meeting.

IP Director · mid-cap biotech · pre-budget portfolio audit

The question

“Pendency, office action count, RCEs, and allowance rate for all our applications — broken down by tech area and outside counsel.”

What LexDana showed

Pendency was 18% longer in one tech area than the company average. One outside counsel had a 2.0× higher RCE rate than the others on overlapping subject matter — with no offsetting allowance-rate advantage.

The decision

Budget reallocated. Counsel work consolidated. Findings presented to the GC and CFO with cited data. Quarterly LexDana review now part of the IP team’s operating rhythm.

Patent prosecution analytics Portfolio audit In-house IP
Category 04

Litigation Strategy & Claim Meaning.

Coming in 2026: the LexDana lifecycle view lets litigation teams find prosecution disclaimers, cross-forum contradictions, and inconsistent expert positions — in minutes.

Litigation Strategy Coming 2026

Pre-Markman: three buried disclaimers, found in an afternoon.

Litigation partner · W.D. Tex. patent defense team · pre-Markman briefing

A defense team uses the Claim Lifecycle View to ask a single question — “Show me every statement in prosecution where the patentee narrowed the scope of claim 1” — and finds three scope-narrowing statements the plaintiff was hoping nobody would mention. The lifecycle view turns 4,000 pages of file history into a 30-minute review.

Full case study coming when V1 launches.
Litigation Strategy Coming 2026

A petitioner’s expert took the opposite position in a related IPR three years earlier.

Patent owner counsel · pending PTAB IPR proceeding

A patent owner’s team uses LexDana to surface every prior PTAB declaration filed by the petitioner’s expert across the same technology cluster. The lifecycle view flags a sworn declaration in a 2023 IPR where the expert took the opposite position on the exact claim element now under attack — a cross-examination goldmine.

Full case study coming when V1 launches.
Category 05

Generic Launch & Hatch-Waxman.

Coming in 2026/2027: Hatch-Waxman case studies for brand and generic counsel — Orange Book risk, 30-month stay strategy, IPR cascades, launch timing.

Hatch-Waxman Coming 2026

Generic counsel re-priced a launch 18 months before filing.

Hatch-Waxman partner · generic pharma client · pre-launch risk assessment

A generic counsel uses LexDana to ask — before any ANDA filing — what the litigation cost and timeline would look like for a target molecule. The system surfaces every Orange Book patent, every prior ANDA case the brand has defended, every PTAB challenge the brand has faced, and the historical settlement and trial outcome curves. Launch is re-timed by 14 months based on the analysis.

Full case study coming when V2 launches.
Hatch-Waxman Coming 2027

Brand strategist anticipated the IPR cascade after the Paragraph IV.

Brand IP strategist · pharmaceutical originator · post-Paragraph IV planning

A brand strategist uses LexDana to model the likely PTAB cascade following a Paragraph IV certification — which patents will be challenged first, which petitioners are most active in the relevant tech, what arguments have worked in parallel matters. The brand is ready with parallel-matter briefs and expert declarations the day the first IPR petition lands.

Full case study coming when V2 launches.
Tell us your question

Got a question we should add a case study for?

We’re publishing real examples of how the patent bar is using LexDana. If you’ve used it (or want to) for a case study we haven’t covered yet, we’d love to hear about it.

Get in touch

Or email info@lexdana.ai