How Lumenci proved infringement in three legal systems from one technical record
Evidence built for a US case rarely survives in a German or Chinese court. Lumenci built a technical record that held across five jurisdictions, and settlements landed in three of them.
.webp "Feature images - 2026-05-07T163421.509 (convert.io)")
Case at a Glance
Domain
Service
Client
Result
Five new licensees, and settlements reached in three separate legal systems.
A US case runs on discovery. A German one does not. The evidence has to work either way.
What most teams do.
What Lumenci did instead.
Built the infringement evidence from product testing rather than from what discovery would produce, so the same technical record travelled across all five jurisdictions.
Why it mattered.
How It Was Done
Lumenci ran the monetization programme as the client's technical team, staffed with engineers who could prove infringement through product testing and analysts who know what technical evidence has to look like in a US, Chinese, or German proceeding.
A portfolio of over 4,000 global assets was analysed to identify the patents most suited to monetization, and that analysis set the direction for every phase that followed.
Rather than approaching the market broadly, effort was concentrated on high-value licensing targets in priority markets across the US, Germany, China, Brazil, and Spain.
An improved testing methodology proved infringement with over 50% greater efficiency than conventional approaches, cutting time-to-evidence without loosening the standard the evidence had to meet.
Working alongside the client's law firms in each jurisdiction, Lumenci carried the technical findings into settlement discussions so they landed as enforceable positions rather than as technical annexes.
What Changed for the Client
Where they stood.
One technical evidence base covering enforcement across five jurisdictions, built from product testing rather than from what any single discovery regime would produce
What Lumenci Added.
A testing methodology that proved infringement over 50% more efficiently, and a technical team that stayed through settlement discussions in each jurisdiction
Where it stands.
Five new licensees converted, settlements reached in the US, China, and Germany, with the programme ongoing
Global Patent Monetization and Infringement Testing
100k+ Patents Analyzed
700+ Monetization Campaigns
250+ Litigations Supported
What This Would Look Like for Your Matter
A scoping conversation covers the portfolio, which jurisdictions matter to your campaign, whether the infringement case can be built from product testing, and how far along your outreach already is. You get a view of what the evidence can support before committing to a full programme.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why doesn't infringement evidence transfer between jurisdictions?
Because the procedures differ. A US case can compel source code and internal documents through discovery. Germany has no equivalent, and other jurisdictions sit somewhere between. Evidence that depends on a US production has nothing behind it in a forum that will never order one.
How do you build infringement evidence that works everywhere?
By grounding it in the product rather than in the defendant's documents. Testing and technical analysis of what a shipping product does is available in any jurisdiction, which makes it the portable part of a technical record.
Is it worth running a licensing campaign in several countries at once?
It can be, where the accused products sell in each of them. Parallel proceedings put pressure on a counterparty that a single-forum action does not, though it only works if the technical position stays consistent across them, because inconsistencies get read against you.
How do you decide which patents in a large portfolio to monetize?
By narrowing before charting. In a portfolio of thousands, most assets will never be worth asserting, so the first task is establishing which ones read on products actually in the market. Lumenci provides patent portfolio analysis as a standalone engagement.
Why target specific licensees instead of approaching the market broadly?
Because a broad approach spends the same effort on targets that will never convert as on those that will. Concentrating on high-value targets where the evidence is strongest raises conversion at every stage and keeps the programme's costs proportionate.
Can Lumenci support enforcement if licensing talks fail?
Yes. The testing and technical analysis behind a licensing approach is the same record an enforcement action rests on, which is why both sit inside one IP litigation support practice.