IntelligenceServicesCase StudiesExpertiseKnowledgeAbout
Case Studies

See what it predicted.

Real intelligence from real enforcement campaigns. Every prediction made before the outcome was known. Every result verified against the public record.

20 / 22Total predictions correct
3SEP holders tested
3Defendant types
2010–2024Campaigns verified

How we back-test

Freeze the model at a point in time. Generate predictions using only historical data. Then compare against what actually happened.

01

Freeze

Lock the model at a date before the campaign started. No future data leaks.

02

Predict

Generate intelligence brief from historical patterns. Settlement probability, duration, venue ranking, defendant behaviour.

03

Verify

Compare every prediction against the known outcome. Grade each dimension as correct, partial, or missed.

Three campaigns. Three verdicts.

Two campaigns where the data said proceed, and the SEP holder won. One where the data said stop, and the SEP holder lost. The platform predicted all three correctly.

01European Multi-Jurisdiction SEP

Nokia v OPPO

SEP Enforcement Campaign Feasibility

Data freeze: 30 June 2021 · July 2021 to January 2024, 2 years 6 months

Nokia's largest active SEP enforcement campaign. 14 patents asserted across 24+ jurisdictions against the entire BBK Electronics group. We froze the model at June 2021, before Nokia filed, and predicted what would happen.

Read the full brief & scorecard→
6 / 6Predictions correct
Chinese OEM cases analysed559
Nokia patents mapped66,301
UK SEP precedents58
02US FRAND Rate Trial

Ericsson v TCL

SEP Licensing Enforcement, US Litigation

Data freeze: 31 December 2013 · June 2014 to December 2019, 5 years 6 months

A US-centric SEP enforcement campaign that went all the way to jury trial and CAFC appeal. We froze the model at December 2013 and predicted TCL would fight, because without a counter-portfolio, fighting is the only rational strategy.

Read the full brief & scorecard→
7 / 8Predictions correct
Ericsson patents86,465
E.D. Texas cases analysed6,590
TCL counter-patents0
03When the Data Says Don't Sue

Motorola v Microsoft

H.264 and WiFi SEP Licensing Enforcement

Data freeze: 30 September 2010 · November 2010 to circa 2015, ~4.5 years

The most important back-test. It proves the platform can predict failure, not just success. The data showed a 4:1 patent ratio favouring Microsoft and warned Motorola not to demand an aggressive rate. Motorola demanded 2.25%. The court set the rate at $0.0555. A 97.5% reduction.

Read the full brief & scorecard→
7 / 8Predictions correct
Motorola patents27,330
Microsoft patents107,772
Portfolio ratio (defendant favoured)4:1
Cross-Reference

Same platform. Different dynamics. Correct every time.

SEP holderNokia v OPPO: Nokia (66K patents)Ericsson v TCL: Ericsson (86K patents)Motorola v Microsoft: Motorola (27K patents)
DefendantNokia v OPPO: OPPO (0 counter-patents)Ericsson v TCL: TCL (0 counter-patents)Motorola v Microsoft: Microsoft (107K patents)
JurisdictionNokia v OPPO: European multi-courtEricsson v TCL: US (E.D. Texas / C.D. Cal)Motorola v Microsoft: US multi-district + UK
OutcomeNokia v OPPO: SEP holder winsEricsson v TCL: SEP holder wins ($75M verdict)Motorola v Microsoft: SEP holder loses (rate crushed 97.5%)
Predictions correctNokia v OPPO: 6/6Ericsson v TCL: 7/8Motorola v Microsoft: 7/8
Key insightNokia v OPPO: Chinese OEMs fight but settle after injunctionsEricsson v TCL: No counter-portfolio = no settlement leverageMotorola v Microsoft: 4:1 portfolio ratio favours defendant

Run it on your portfolio.

We generate this level of intelligence for your patents, your targets, your enforcement campaign.

Book a Call

Reader Tools

No notes yet

Select text anywhere and click
"Save" to add research notes