The way this study re litigation cases said the summary judgement also has its own double edge sword danger in order to win the case( patent holders lost on frequently-brought motions for summary judgment of noninfringement 54%).As two of the commentator said Suppose that the patent litigation system is working perfectly, that is to say, the only cases that go to full determination on the merits are those that both sides think they ought to win (because all the rest settle). With a 50:50 split on infringement Y/N and on validity Y/N, patent owner ought to win 25% of the time. Assuming rational decision makers (on both sides), assuming that both sides are reasonably able to estimate the probability of a favorable/unfavorable outcome at trial (that’s a weak assumption, I know), and ignoring the fact that this is a repeat game for some plaintiffs (which means that the cost of an adverse outcome goes beyond the present case), then the outcome percentage here should be driven by the ratio between settlement value and the net value of a judgment for the plaintiff. The 26% figure suggests to me that, on average, the parties to these cases are estimating that the net value of a plaintiff judgment in these cases is about 4 times the settlement value, more or less. The cases that go to trial will tend to be those where the pricing of the settlement by the plaintiff is the most aggressive, of course.

Again this is only one of many different study re complex issues of patent litigation. If we were lucky with such a favorable of outcomes of recent 2 claim construction hearing it has the greatest chance to be in favor of plaintiff in possible future trial or more significant monetary reward in settlement . JMHO