Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

I have strong primary material. Let me verify the appellate outcome, PTAB specifics, and current corporate facts.

Parties, Technology, and the Dispute

EagleView Technologies, Inc. is a practicing operating company — not an NPE/PAE and not a university licensee. It describes itself as a data-analytics business built on aerial imagery of roofs: it captures aerial imagery, extracts roof measurements, and sells roof reports (PremiumReports, Wall Reports, QuickSquares, etc.) to insurers, roofing contractors, and government customers. Its "cornerstone product," per the court, is the roof report generated by its patented software; the underlying tools are internally named Render House and Twister. EagleView is the parent of co-plaintiff Pictometry International Corp. (Rochester, NY), the aerial-imagery library business, and was acquired by private-equity firm Vista Equity Partners in 2015 (that acquisition is described in the court record at Dkt. 547). Note a caption quirk: Verisk's SEC filings style the plaintiff as "Pictometry International Group, Inc.," while the case metadata and docket use "Pictometry International Corp." I could not verify EagleView's current ownership today (post-2021) — that fact is not well sourced in what I reviewed. Xactware Solutions, Inc. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRSK), a large insurance-focused data-analytics public company headquartered in Jersey City, NJ. Xactware makes Xactimate, the dominant property-claims cost-estimating platform in the U.S. insurance industry. So this is a competitor-versus-competitor case between a focused, patent-rich operating company and a diversified, much larger public-company rival — the opposite of the classic PAE assertion pattern.

The accused technology. EagleView alleged that Xactware/Verisk infringed by selling Xactimate in combination with Aerial Sketch version 2, and Xactimate in combination with Property InSight and Roof InSight (later rebranded Geomni Property and Geomni Roof) plus the Mass Production Tool, to generate their own roof estimate reports from aerial imagery. The patented inventions replaced manual tape-measure roof inspections with a process that builds a three-dimensional roof model from aerial photos and computes slope, area, and edge lengths to price repairs — improving safety, speed, and (critically) accuracy. The jury's verdict was directed at Defendants' generation of roof reports from their software, not at Xactimate as a general estimating tool.

The patents at issue. Six patents appear in the case metadata; five were tried to verdict. EagleView's operative pleading narrowed as follows (per Verisk's 10-Q/10-K disclosures, which track the docket): the original complaint (served Oct. 8, 2015) asserted seven patents — the '436, '840, '152, '880, '770, '732, and '454 — and the First Amended Complaint (Nov. 30, 2015) added the '376 and '737. A May 19, 2017 stipulated partial dismissal with prejudice dropped the '880 and '732 and certain claims; EagleView then dropped the '152 and the '737, leaving six asserted claims across five patents: the '436, '840, '770, '454, and '376. Technical sketches (per the trial opinion at Dkt. 901 and the patents themselves):

• U.S. 8,078,436 — "Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods" (Pershing et al.; priority Apr. 17, 2007). The foundational patent: a system/software pipeline for producing roof estimate reports from aerial images (image acquisition → roof modeling → report generation).
• U.S. 8,170,840 — "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation" (Pershing). Determines the pitch of individual roof sections from aerial imagery and uses it to build a wire-frame roof model.
• U.S. 8,818,770 — "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimates." A continuation in the same pitch-determination family (claims directed to specific pitch-determination limitations; the PTAB found certain limitations not disclosed in the cited art).
• U.S. 8,825,454 — "Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation." A UI/display invention: multiple aerial views of the same roof are shown at once so that a user's edit to a line drawing on one image is propagated to the corresponding drawing on another.
• U.S. 9,129,376 — "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation." A later-issued member of the pitch-determination family (issued Sept. 8, 2015).
• U.S. 9,135,737 — "Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation" (issued Sept. 15, 2015). A user-interface patent for generating a roof model from aerial images; EagleView's infringement contentions (Dkt. 555) asserted claims 8 and 25 against the same accused products. It was dropped before trial and never reached the jury — which is why the Xactware/Verisk IPR campaign against the '737 sits outside the trial record (the case's own IPR linkage to the '737 is consistent with the existing case summary).

Procedural Posture, Venue, and Why It Mattered

The case was filed Sept. 23, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, assigned to the Camden Vicinage. Venue was plaintiff's choice, but NJ is not arbitrary: Verisk is a New Jersey-headquartered company, making it a natural and defensible forum for a suit naming Verisk as a co-defendant (the docket originally carried the suffix RBK–JS). Judge Robert B. Kugler handled the case through summary judgment — denying Defendants' equitable-estoppel motion (Dec. 20, 2018), denying their § 101/Alice unpatentability motion (Jan. 29, 2019) on the ground that Defendants had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the claims were directed to an abstract idea or lacked an inventive concept, and denying EagleView's motion to exclude prior art (Dec. 6, 2018). The case was reassigned in June 2019 to Judge Renée Marie Bumb, who presided over trial (the docket then read RMB–JS, with Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider). Trial ran Sept. 9–25, 2019; after a 12-day trial the jury deliberated less than two hours and found willful infringement, upheld validity, and awarded $125 million in lost profits (verdict Dkt. 796; judgment Dkt. 799, entered Sept. 26, 2019). Post-trial: the court issued a TRO (Sept. 26, 2019) and a permanent injunction (Dkt. 842, Oct. 18, 2019) barring sales of Geomni Roof, Geomni Property, and Aerial Sketch v2 in combination with Xactimate; denied JMOL/new trial (Dkt. 901, Sept. 9, 2020) in a 78-page opinion; and on Feb. 16, 2021 trebled the award to $375 million, added § 285 fees (limited to the window from motions in limine through trial), and awarded prejudgment interest at the prime rate from Sept. 23, 2015. Verisk booked a $125M reserve and posted a $137.5M supersedeas bond, later adding a $305M bond after the treble. A contempt proceeding followed in 2021 over Verisk's Roof Underwriting Report (RUR), which EagleView alleged violated the injunction.

Why it is notable. First, the raw numbers: $125M in lost profits (the full amount requested) plus a maximum treble is one of the largest enhanced-damages awards in recent patent practice, and it is a leading post-Halo illustration of a court applying the Read factors holistically — including the infringer's marketplace conduct (internal 2015 "Five Year Business Strategy" documents calling EagleView a "threat" and targeting "aggressive" share erosion and price undercutting) and its litigation conduct (repeat PTAB challenges, mistrial provocation attempts). Second, the IPR linkage: Xactware filed roughly thirteen IPR petitions against the asserted patents; the PTAB declined to institute about nine. Of the four that were instituted (covering the '454, '770, '152, and '737), most ended favorably to EagleView, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 7, 2019 (Nos. 2018-1053, -1055, -1056, -1110, nonprecedential), declining to reach the nexus/secondary-considerations evidentiary standard because Xactware had not clearly raised it below. The case produced a real fight over § 315(e)(2) IPR estoppel post-SAS — Judge Bumb split the difference, allowing Defendants to raise grounds the PTAB never decided but permitting EagleView to cross-examine on the IPR history, which EagleView credits as decisive at trial. Third, the market context: this was a two-player market, and the FTC had blocked Verisk's ~$650 million acquisition of EagleView in 2014 on antitrust grounds — so the litigation was the tail end of a failed acquisition and a failed merger, with the odd overlay that Xactware ran roughly 25% of EagleView's roof reports through Xactimate while the parties litigated. Finally, the case ended not with a Federal Circuit ruling but a settlement: after the Oct. 8, 2021 oral argument (where the panel pressed Alice eligibility hard enough that EagleView-risk-of-zero was real), the parties settled, announced a long-term commercial agreement, and had the appeal dismissed. On the joint motion to vacate, the court vacated the injunction and dismissed all claims with prejudice but refused to vacate the judgment, reasoning that "[t]he public interest is best served by the finality of judgments" and that "[a] jury trial is not a dress rehearsal" — preserving the verdict on the record.

Sourcing note: the party, product, patent, date, docket-number, and damages facts above are grounded in the court's opinions (Dkt. 901, 842), the verdict/judgment (Dkt. 796/799), EagleView's and Verisk's public statements and SEC risk-factor disclosures, and Law360/ALM reporting. Counsel of record: Kirkland & Ellis (Adam Alper, Michael W. De Vries, Gianni Cutri, Brandon H. Brown, and colleagues) with local counsel Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga for EagleView; McCarter & English (Scott S. Christie, Lee Carl Bromberg, Matthew A. Sklar, and colleagues) for Xactware/Verisk, later joined by Gibson Dunn's Mark Perry. I was unable to complete verification of a few secondary details (exact IPR numbers for each petition, current EagleView ownership, and the precise settlement date) before exhausting my search budget; those should be treated as unconfirmed.

I'll research the docket chronology, Markman outcome, IPR specifics, and disposition to build this section out.

Good primary material. Now let me pin down the Markman opinion, early motions, IPR numbers, and the appellate/settlement disposition.

Now let me pin down the Markman opinion, the stay ruling date, early pleadings, and the specific IPR numbers/institutions.

Key Legal Developments — Chronology

This section builds on the overview above and focuses on the procedural record (with docket cites). Where I could not verify a date or docket number from primary sources, I flag it.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2015)

2. Discovery-shaping orders and the first dispositive motion (2016)

• 2016-05-02 / 2016-05-04 (Dkt. 75, 79) — On discovery dispute, the Court stayed all depositions and the parties' Markman submissions, but denied Defendants' request to stay all discovery (Dkt. 150 reciting "May 4, 2016 Order at 1-2 [Doc. No. 75]"; oral opinion Tr. 46:8-46:12 [Doc. 79]). The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer to cut the then-asserted 153 claims and 63 claim terms to a reasonable number. This is the single most consequential early discovery ruling — it kept fact discovery alive while the Markman track paused.
• 2016-08-02 — Judge Kugler denied Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding the record did not permit a "full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter" amid disputed facts and disputed claim meanings — i.e., a § 101 / pleadings-stage eligibility attack was premature. Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc., 2016 WL 4154136 (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2016).
• 2016-09-16 — EagleView served amended infringement contentions, narrowing from 153 claims / 9 patents to 46 claims / 7 patents (Dkt. 119) — a deliberate move to moot the pending stay motion by shrinking the IPR overlap.

3. The stay-pending-IPR fight (2016–2017)

• 2016-09-08 (Dkt. 107) — Defendants moved to stay the case pending IPR (the IPR campaign is detailed in § 9).
• 2016-11-14 — Oral argument on the stay motion.
• Late 2016 (Dkt. 150) — The Court denied the stay. Reasoning that matters going forward: (i) the correct denominator for "issue simplification" is the presently asserted claims, not the originally asserted ones — IPRs reached only 4 of 46 asserted claims / 4 of 7 asserted patents; (ii) the PTAB's institution decisions had not supplied "comprehensive claim construction" (only "database" of the '880 and "geo-referenced" of the '732 — both already dropped); (iii) Defendants had already had three rehearing requests denied and were on a second wave of petitions; and (iv) a stay would unduly prejudice EagleView. The motion was filed Sept. 8, 2016 and the opinion post-dates the Nov. 22, 2016 letter, so the entry date is late 2016; I could not confirm the exact day.
• 2017-05-19 — Stipulated partial dismissal with prejudice: the '880 and '732 (and certain claims) dropped.

4. Markman (2017) — the case did reach claim construction

• 2017-12-05 (Dkt. 332) — Markman Opinion and Order entered. (Explicitly cited in Dkt. 432: "The Markman Opinion and Order were filed on December 5, 2017. [Doc. No. 332].")
• 2017-12-13 (Dkt. 336) — 231-page Markman hearing transcript filed.
• Substantive outcome, at least in part favorable to EagleView: on the "concurrent display" family terms ('454/'770 — "displaying … in a same display window," "first and second visual markers"), the Court held the claim language "unambiguously recites that the first and second markers are seen in aerial images," but that "that these markers are necessarily different does not follow" — i.e., it declined to read in a requirement that the markers be distinct, resisting Defendants' narrowing construction. Sourcing note: I confirmed this passage from the Dkt. 332 opinion text but did not obtain the full list of construed terms — the complete term-by-term outcome should be treated as partially unverified.

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance (2016–2018)

• 2016-02 — EagleView produced Thornberry deposition transcripts from the prior EagleView v. Aerialogics suit; these later became the seed of Defendants' inequitable-conduct theory (Dkt. 432).
• 2017-09-28 — Deposition of Greg Carlson (EagleView co-founder).
• 2017-11-07/08 — Deposition of Chris Pershing (named inventor).
• 2017-12-21 / 2018-01-21 — EagleView answered and supplemented interrogatories on Carlson's inventive contributions.
• 2016-09 / 2016-09-26 (Dkt. 108 etc.) — Multiple joint discovery-dispute letters and telephone status conferences before Mag. J. Schneider over contentions.
• 2018-01-26 (Dkt. 363) — Court denied Defendants' application to compel a supplement to interrogatory No. 22.
• 2018-02-09 — Defendants moved for leave to amend to add (a) a § 102(f)/inventorship defense (Carlson allegedly omitted as co-inventor on all six patents) and (b) a second bite at inequitable conduct. Motion filed ~17 months after the original amendment deadline.
• ~2018-06-02 (Dkt. 432) — Court denied leave to amend as untimely (the motion was filed ~9 months after even the final extended deadline), finding Defendants knew or should have known of the Carlson/Aerialogics facts far earlier. (Date inferred from the Justia PDF timestamp; treat as approximate.)

6. Dispositive-motion wave on the eve of trial (2018–2019)

• 2018-03-28 — Judge Kugler granted EagleView's motions to dismiss and strike Defendants' first inequitable-conduct counterclaim and affirmative defense (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51192) — dismissal without prejudice, but Defendants never amended.
• 2018-12-06 — Court denied EagleView's motion to exclude prior art.
• 2018-12-20 — Court denied Defendants' equitable-estoppel motion (later formally withdrawn during the injunction phase at Dkt. 835).
• 2019-01-29 (Dkt. 557) — Court denied Defendants' § 101/Alice summary-judgment motion, holding it was not shown by clear and convincing evidence "that either the relevant claims are directed to an abstract idea or embody no inventive concept." Judge Kugler found the claims "recite steps that achieve the result by defining an improvement to computer functionality," not a mere computer-implemented version of a human roofer with a tape measure. This ruling was later ratified by Judge Bumb in the post-trial opinion.
• 2019-02-04 — Two more Defense losses: (a) motion to strike EagleView's past-damages claim denied, and (b) one of Defendants' non-infringement arguments struck as inconsistent with governing patent law (per EagleView's Feb. 11, 2019 press release).

7. Pretrial, the § 315(e)(2) estoppel fight, and reassignment (2019)

• 2019-05-16 (Dkt. 628) — EagleView's brief opposing Defendants' attempt to assert invalidity grounds in the litigation that the PTAB never decided, arguing IPR estoppel is claim-by-claim and is triggered only by a final written decision (Shaw Indus. Grp.; Depomed). Judge Bumb ultimately split the difference (as noted in the overview): Defendants could raise grounds the PTAB never decided, but EagleView could cross-examine on the IPR history — which EagleView credits as decisive at trial.
• 2019-05-30 (Dkt. 669) — Joint Final Pretrial Order with stipulated/contested facts, witness list, and exhibit list; amended 2019-06-03 (Dkt. 674). Order of 2019-05-31 withdrew all exhibit objections and set omnibus motions-in-limine sealing deadlines.
• June 2019 — Case reassigned from Judge Kugler to Judge Renée Marie Bumb (docket suffix changes RBK–JS → RMB–SAK/JS; Mag. J. Schneider). Trial initially set for late May 2019, slipped to September.

8. Trial, verdict, and judgment (2019)

• 2019-09-09 → 2019-09-25 — Jury trial before Judge Bumb (twelve days; ten days of testimony; "thousands of exhibits"). Note: one later opinion mislabels the post-trial opinion date as "September 9, 2019" — see flag below.
• 2019-09-25 — Verdict (Dkt. 796). Infringement found on six claims across five patents: '436 cl. 2 and cl. 36; '840 cl. 10; '376 cl. 20; '454 cl. 26; '770 cl. 12 — for both accused combinations (Xactimate + Property Insight/Roof Insight + Mass Production Tool; and Xactimate + Aerial Sketch v2). Willfulness: yes as to both Xactware and Verisk. No claim proven invalid (anticipation/obviousness questions all answered for EagleView). $125,000,000 in lost profits.
• 2019-09-26 (Dkt. 799) — Judgment entered on the verdict; TRO issued the same day (motion at Dkt. 791, filed 2019-09-26; order Dkt. 800).
• 2019-10-18 (Dkt. 842) — Permanent injunction entered (Opinion Dkt. 841): enjoins making/selling/using Xactimate in combination with Aerial Sketch v2, and Xactimate in combination with Property Insight/Roof Insight and the Mass Production Tool, including products later rebranded Geomni Roof/Geomni Property and colorably different products, plus customer notice within 7 days. Issued under the eBay four-factor test, with an express causation/nexus finding and rejection of the "cup holder in a car" analogy.

9. Post-trial motions (2020–2021)

• Dkt. 863 (Rule 50(b)) — Defendants moved for JMOL / new trial, attacking "every aspect" of the verdict and alleging a "cascading series of errors." The Court ordered a sur-reply from EagleView (Dkt. 890) because of starkly divergent characterizations of the record, and denied Defendants' request for a sur-sur-reply (Dkt. 891).
• 2020-09-09 (Dkt. 901 (opinion), 902 (order)) — JMOL/new trial DENIED in a 78-page opinion; the Court upheld the willfulness finding and entered judgment on the verdict under Rule 50(b)(1). The opinion also reaffirmed Judge Kugler's § 101 analysis (claims directed to a concrete, tailored improvement, not an abstract idea) and rejected Defendants' invalidity, non-infringement, and damages challenges.
• 2021-02-16 (Dkt. 909) — Enhanced-damages/fees opinion: trebled the $125M to $375M under § 284 applying the Read factors holistically (copying/"fertile opportunity," the 2015 "Five Year Business Strategy" naming EagleView a "threat" and targeting aggressive share/price erosion, litigation conduct, size/financial condition, closeness of the case), awarded § 285 attorneys' fees limited to the window from motions in limine through trial, and prejudgment interest at the prime rate from 2015-09-23. Supersedeas bonds followed ($137.5M, then a $305M addition).
• 2021 (contempt phase) — EagleView moved to initiate contempt proceedings (plus a TRO) alleging Verisk's Roof Underwriting Report (RUR) violated the injunction. Judge Bumb found a prima facie showing of contempt and authorized expedited discovery; the parties were briefing when they settled. EagleView's fee/cost/interest motion remained pending.

10. Appeal, settlement, and final disposition (2019–2021)

• 2019-10-24 (Dkt. 843) — Verisk/Xactware filed a timely notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit; further notices of appeal (Dkt. 903, 911) followed after the post-trial rulings. Consolidated as Fed. Cir. Nos. 21-1048 (lead), 21-1049, and 21-1743.
• 2021-10-08 — Federal Circuit oral argument (the panel reportedly pressed the Alice eligibility issue hard).
• 2021-11-05 (Dkt. 987) — The parties settled and jointly filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order seeking vacatur of (a) the Judgment (Dkt. 799), (b) the Permanent Injunction (Dkt. 842) and all underlying orders/findings, (c) dismissal with prejudice of all claims/counterclaims/defenses, and (d) termination of the contempt proceedings — plus a long-term commercial agreement; the settlement affirmed the patents as valid, subsisting, and enforceable and that Verisk complied with the injunction (financial terms undisclosed).
• 2021-11-09 — The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeal (certified order in lieu of formal mandate entered).
• 2021-11-10 (Dkt. 989 (opinion), 990 (order)) — Judge Bumb split the requested relief:
  • Granted: vacated the permanent injunction (Rule 60(b)(5) — no longer equitable to apply prospectively); terminated the contempt proceedings; dismissed the fee/cost/interest motion as moot; and dismissed the underlying claims/counterclaims/defenses (the opinion says without prejudice, while the stipulation asked for with prejudice — a discrepancy worth noting).
  • Denied: the request to vacate the Judgment and the underlying orders/findings. Reasoning: "[t]he public interest is best served by the finality of judgments" and "[a] jury trial is not a dress rehearsal" (citing U.S. Bancorp v. Bonner Mall and Argentum Medical v. Noble Biomaterials). The $125M verdict and the willfulness/enhanced-damages record therefore survive on the docket even though the injunction does not.

11. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

Scale. Xactware/Verisk filed roughly 13 IPR petitions across the asserted patents; the PTAB declined institution in about nine.

• Institution denied (representative, per EagleView's public statement and PTAB decisions):
  • IPR2016-00582 — '436; denied 2016-08-16 (Hsieh failed to qualify as a printed publication); rehearing denied 2016-09-21.
  • IPR2016-01775 — '436; denied.
  • IPR2017-00021 — '436; denied 2017-04-14 under § 314(a) discretionary denial (second-wave petition after a denial; "single bite at the apple" rationale).
  • IPR2017-00025 — '770; denied 2017-04-13 (same § 314(a) ground).
  • IPR2017-00027 — '454; denied.
  • IPR2017-00034 — '152; denied.
  • IPR2017-00363 — filed 2016-11-30; institution denied (docket entries for this petition are internally inconsistent, so treat its status with care).
• Instituted and litigated to final written decision (four, upholding validity of the challenged claims): IPR2016-00589, IPR2016-00590, IPR2016-00591, IPR2016-00592, covering the '454, '770, '152, and '737 patents.
• 2019-03-06 — Federal Circuit affirmed in Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2018-1053, -1055, -1056, -1110 (nonprecedential). The court declined to reach the nexus/secondary-considerations evidentiary standard because it was "[not] clearly at issue in the parties' briefing before the Board," found substantial evidence of nexus, and upheld the Board on the '770 "moving/movement" limitations over Avrahami and on the '152 claims 10/15/25. (See flag on the decision date below.)

Effect on the litigation. Because the PTAB upheld the challenged claims and the denials stacked up, the IPR campaign did not stay the case (the stay motion was denied), did not knock out the trial patents, and did not simplify the trial to the point of avoidance — instead it produced the § 315(e)(2) estoppel skirmish (defendants allowed to press grounds the PTAB never decided; EagleView allowed to cross-examine on the IPR history) and an adverse-inference narrative at trial. Two patents that were wrapped up in the IPR wave — the '152 and the '737 — were dropped from the case before trial, consistent with the case-summary note that the '737 IPR sits outside the trial record.

---

Flags and contradictions to note

1. Federal Circuit decision date — 2019-03-06 vs. 2019-03-07. The slip opinion itself reads "Decided: March 6, 2019," but the earlier case-summary and the Paterson + Sheridan weekly summary both say March 7, 2019 (and cite the same four appeal numbers). The metadata in this prompt says "Federal Circuit affirmed on March 7, 2019." Treat 2019-03-06/07 as the same event; the opinion PDF's own date is March 6.
2. Post-trial opinion date typo in the opinions themselves. Dkt. 901 and Dkt. 909 both say "an Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2019" for the JMOL ruling. The opinion is actually filed 2020-09-09 (Dkt. 901 PDF stamp). The earlier case summary's 2020-09-09 date is correct; the opinions' internal text contains the error.
3. Dismissal "with prejudice" vs. "without prejudice" at settlement. The Dkt. 987 stipulation asked for dismissal of all claims/counterclaims/defenses with prejudice; Dkt. 989 states the Court dismissed them without prejudice. This is a genuine discrepancy in the record that should be resolved before relying on it.
4. Case metadata vs. trial record on the '737. The case metadata lists the '737 among the "patents at issue," but it was dropped before trial and was not before the jury. The metadata is consistent with the docket (the '737 was asserted, then abandoned), not with the trial patent set.
5. Unverified items. I did not confirm from primary sources: (a) the exact filing date/content of Defendants' answer and counterclaims; (b) the exact entry date of the stay-denial opinion (Dkt. 150); (c) the complete term-by-term Markman outcome; (d) the entry date of the leave-to-amend denial (Dkt. 432, inferred ~2018-06-02 from the PDF timestamp); and (e) the precise dollar figures of the supersedeas bonds (reported as $137.5M then $305M). These should be treated as unconfirmed pending PACER verification.

Primary sources used: Dkt. 150 (stay denial), Dkt. 332/336 (Markman), Dkt. 432 (leave to amend), Dkt. 628 (§ 315(e)(2) estoppel brief), Dkt. 669/674 (final pretrial order), Dkt. 796 (verdict), Dkt. 799 (judgment), Dkt. 841/842 (permanent injunction), Dkt. 901/902 (JMOL/new trial), Dkt. 909 (enhanced damages), Dkt. 987 (settlement stipulation), Dkt. 989 (vacatur opinion); Xactware v. Eagle View, Nos. 2018-1053 et al. (Fed. Cir.); the CourtListener docket for No. 1:15-cv-07025; EagleView press releases (Feb. 11, 2019; IPR-denial update); PtAB Litigation Blog (§ 314(a) denials); SaIBER/New Jersey Federal Practice Alert (Jan. 19, 2022); Insurance Journal (Nov. 8, 2021); Kirkland & Ellis press summary (Jan. 2019).

I'll research the plaintiff-side counsel of record thoroughly, building on the names already noted (Kirkland & Ellis; Walsh Pizzi).

Good primary material. Let me dig into the complaint signature block, appearance entries, and the Federal Circuit/appeal counsel.

Now let me verify individual bios and the remaining names (including the early pro hac vice entrant and the local-counsel associate).

Note: I hit my search-budget limit while pulling individual attorney bios, so a few biographical details below are grounded only in docket/opinion signature blocks and contemporaneous reporting rather than firm-profile pages. I've flagged what is verified versus unconfirmed.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiffs (EagleView Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp.)

Both plaintiffs were represented by a single, integrated team: Kirkland & Ellis LLP as lead trial/appellate counsel (appearing pro hac vice) and Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP as New Jersey local counsel. No separate or divergent counsel for Pictometry appears anywhere in the record I reviewed — the same attorneys signed for both plaintiffs (see Dkt. 2 complaint signature block; Dkt. 901 and Dkt. 909 signature blocks; Walsh Pizzi's own press release, which credits the team with representing "EagleView" for both captioned plaintiffs). I found no in-house attorney appearance on the docket.

Lead Trial Counsel — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Local Counsel — Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP (Newark, NJ)

Three Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102.

Appellate Counsel — Federal Circuit

On the 2019 IPR appeals (Nos. 2018-1053, -1055, -1056, -1110, Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.) and the 2020–21 judgment appeals (Nos. 21-1048, 21-1049, 21-1743):

• John C. O'Quinn — Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C. — principal appellate advocate; argued for the appellee in 2019 (per the Federal Circuit opinion's counsel line) and argued for EagleView at the Oct. 8, 2021 oral argument, where the panel (Taranto and others) pressed Alice eligibility (Law360 report).
• Jason M. Wilcox — Kirkland & Ellis — on the Federal Circuit briefs (2019 opinion counsel line; 2020 entry of appearance).
• C. Alex Shank — Kirkland & Ellis — entry of appearance, Oct. 28, 2020 (No. 21-1048); also filed the Jan. 21, 2021 extension motion for appellees.
• Adam R. Alper (San Francisco), Michael W. De Vries (Los Angeles), Gianni Cutri (Chicago), and Brandon H. Brown all appear on the Oct. 28, 2020 Federal Circuit entry of appearance for appellees Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corporation.

Caveats and contradictions to flag

1. Pictometry's separate representation: the case metadata lists Pictometry International Corp. as a co-plaintiff, and the caption quirk noted in the earlier section stands — but I found no separate counsel for Pictometry. The NJLJ Top Verdicts entry states "Pictometry was dismissed prior to trial," yet Pictometry remained a named appellee on the Federal Circuit entry of appearance, so the trial-court dismissal did not remove it from the appellate caption. Treat the "dismissed prior to trial" line as reported, not docket-verified.
2. Defendants' counsel (for context only, per the earlier section): McCarter & English (Scott S. Christie, Lee Carl Bromberg, Matthew A. Sklar, Mark H. Anania, Ravin R. Patel) at trial, later joined by Gibson Dunn (Mark A. Perry, Ryan K. Iwahashi, Kellam M. Conover) on appeal — confirmed in the Federal Circuit appearance entries.
3. Unverified: individual bar-admission dates, current practice status, and whether any of the above have since left their firms. I also could not confirm EagleView in-house counsel — no corporate counsel entered an appearance on this docket in the material I reviewed, so any in-house participation would have been behind the scenes; I make no claim about it.

I'll research defense counsel thoroughly. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the full docket and initial appearances.

Let me get the full docket attorney list and details on individual counsel.

Defense counsel of record — Xactware Solutions, Inc. & Verisk Analytics, Inc.

Sourcing caveat up front: D.N.J. does not publish a free, complete ECF attorney list, so the roster below is reconstructed from the appearance blocks printed in the court's own opinions and filed papers (Dkt. 461, 463, 487, 569, 755, 841, 901), the CourtListener docket feed for No. 1:15-cv-07025, and the NJLJ Top Verdicts write-up. Where I could not confirm a firm/role, I say so. I did not find any sealed attorney list, and the docket is not under seal as to appearances — so the names below are of record, not inference.

---

1. McCarter & English, LLP — local/lead trial counsel and first-line defense firm

This firm carried the bulk of the defense docket from the 2015 answer through post-trial. Two offices appear: Newark, NJ (Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street) and Boston, MA (265 Franklin Street). The signatures/declarations on nearly every defense motion are McCarter's.

2. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — outside appellate/post-trial counsel

3. In-house / corporate counsel

I found no named Verisk or Xactware in-house attorney appearing of record in this docket. Verisk's SEC risk-factor disclosures reference the litigation but do not name in-house counsel. Notably, the trial record shows Xactware/Verisk had a separate "IP Counsel" whose communications with Xactware officers (e.g., a March 8, 2012 Webecke email chain, DTX-479) were referenced but redacted in the public opinion (Dkt. 909) — that in-house/outside IP-counsel identity is shielded and cannot be stated without fabrication.

---

Corrections/refinements to the earlier case summary

The previously generated section named only "McCarter & English (Scott S. Christie, Lee Carl Bromberg, Matthew A. Sklar …) … later joined by Gibson Dunn's Mark Perry." That is directionally right but incomplete — the of-record defense team was materially larger. The court's own appearance blocks and filed papers add at least Ravin R. Patel, Thomas R. Fulford, Thomas F. Foley, Wyley S. Proctor, Brian M. Seeve, and James Thomson (all McCarter, Boston/NJ), plus the transitory appearance by Elina Slavin and the Brian J. Larivee pro hac vice application. I found no contradiction with the case metadata; the only flag is that firm affiliations for Cohen, Slavin, and Larivee could not be verified within this research pass.

Primary citations: Dkt. 461 (Christie declaration, McCarter block), Dkt. 463 & 465 (defense motions, Boston attorney block), Dkt. 487 (SMF signature block), Dkt. 569 (Apr. 1, 2019 FPT/settlement minutes naming Christie, Bromberg, Proctor, Sklar), Dkt. 755 (joint final pretrial order appearance block), Dkt. 841 & 901 (opinions naming McCarter and Gibson Dunn), CourtListener docket 4517885 (Cohen filings, Dkt. 999–1002); NJLJ Top Verdicts & Settlements (defense counsel Bromberg/Christie for Xactware and Verisk). URLs: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4517885/eagle-view-technologies-inc-v-xactware-solutions-inc/ ; https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/1:2015cv07025/[325251/901](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=325251-0901)/0.pdf