How Lumenci grew the damages base by finding products the complaint never accused
A damages case is only as wide as the accused product list.
Working through 300+ GB of discovery, Lumenci found products practicing the asserted claims that nobody had named.
.webp "Feature images - 2026-05-07T163421.509 (convert.io)")
Case at a Glance
Domain
Service
Client
Outcome
A wider accused set, a bigger damages base, and a favorable settlement before trial.
The complaint sets the damages ceiling. Discovery decides whether you ever raise it.
What most teams do.
What Lumenci did instead.
Worked through 300+ GB of produced code and documents and identified additional products practicing the asserted claims.
Why it mattered.
How It Was Done
Lumenci ran the technical side from portfolio selection through to damages, so the same team that chose the patents was the one proving them.
A broad portfolio was assessed and ranked to identify the patents with the widest coverage and the strongest read against the market, so the assertion began from the strongest position available.
Public research and hands-on product testing confirmed infringement before the complaint was filed, rather than leaving the question to be answered in discovery.
Over 300 GB of produced code and technical documentation was reviewed to build infringement contentions traceable to specific implementations. This is where the additional accused products surfaced.
Claim charts and expert report contributions grounded the construction positions in how the products are actually built.
Deposition outlines and questions were prepared for the technical witnesses, and the resulting transcripts were folded back into the infringement analysis.
Apportionment models tied value to the patented features specifically, supported by a review of comparable licenses, so the wider product set converted into a damages theory that could hold.
What Changed for the Client
Where they stood.
A damages case built on more products than the complaint had originally accused
What it forced.
The other side had to defend a wider product set against apportionment tied to the patented features, not a whole-product argument it could pick apart
How it ended.
A dispute running in parallel across WDTX and Germany resolved in a favorable settlement before trial
Source Code Review for Patent Litigation
100k+ Patents Analyzed
200+ Source Code Reviews
250+ Litigations Supported
What This Would Look Like for Your Matter
A scoping conversation covers the portfolio you are considering asserting, what has been produced so far, your Markman and expert report dates, and where the technical record is most likely to move the damages number. You get a view of what the evidence can support before committing to a full engagement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a source code review find products the complaint never accused?
It can. Productions routinely contain code and documentation covering products beyond those named in the complaint. Whether they surface is a scoping decision, because a review restricted to the accused list will confirm that list and nothing else.
How does the accused product list affect the damages number?
Directly. Damages are calculated against the accused products, so the list sets the ceiling before apportionment is even argued. A product that is never accused contributes nothing, regardless of whether it practices the claims.
Why do damages theories fail on apportionment?
Because the analysis has to separate the value of the patented feature from the value of the whole product, and in a complex networking product that separation is a technical exercise before it is an economic one. Apportionment built without engineering grounding is where damages get cut down.
How is a production of hundreds of gigabytes reviewed on a litigation schedule?
Through structured review protocols and a team sized to the production. Volume is a staffing and process problem, not a reason to sample. The binding constraint is usually protective order access hours rather than reviewer capacity.
Can Lumenci help choose which patents to assert, not just prove them?
Yes. Portfolio mining and patent ranking sit ahead of the assertion, and on this matter the same team carried through to damages. Lumenci also provides standalone patent portfolio analysis and valuation.
Does Lumenci support the damages case as well as infringement?
We build the technical grounding damages models rest on, including apportionment tied to the patented features and comparable license review. Where a matter needs testimony directly, Lumenci also provides expert witness testimony.