{"id":"AIBD-0987","title":"A California federal court found that H5's algorithm-driven review of almost 12 million records was more efficient and held its fees reasonable","summary":"In February 2013 a US district judge found that H5's algorithm-driven review of almost 12 million records was a more efficient method and held its $2,829,349.10 cost reasonable.","date_observed":"2013-02-01","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","benefit_status":"reported","source_collection":null,"source_entry":null,"account":"Gabriel Technologies and Trace Technologies sued Qualcomm and two co-defendants, seeking over $1 billion in damages. The court ruled for the defendants and later found that the plaintiffs had pursued objectively baseless claims in bad faith. The defendants had collected almost 12 million records. They paid H5 to sort the records into responsive and non-responsive documents with its proprietary technology. Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance. Ruling on fees on 1 February 2013, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia found that the H5 process minimized the work left for the contract attorneys. He found that counsel's choice of a more efficient and less time-consuming method was reasonable. He wrote that counsel seemingly reduced fees and attorney hours by reviewing electronically at the outset. He held that the $2,829,349.10 for the algorithm-driven review was reasonable and included it in a fee award of $12,465,331.01. The court measured no saving, and the order does not show whether the algorithm learned from data. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014.","category":"benefit created","unexpected":false,"purpose":"H5 built its proprietary document review technology to sort large collections of records into responsive and non-responsive documents.","system":"H5's computer-assisted, algorithm-driven document review (proprietary technology)","model_version":null,"developer":"H5","deployer":"Qualcomm Incorporated and its co-defendants, through their counsel Cooley LLP, with contract reviewers from Black Letter Discovery","location":"San Diego, California, United States","domain":"Legal services / e-discovery","segment":null,"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost","work_activities":["4.A.2.a.2","4.A.1.a.1"],"taxonomy_note":null,"registry_ids":{},"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"The court found that the algorithm-driven review reduced the work left for contract attorneys, but it measured no saving."}],"ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court accepted the defendants' account and compared no costs with a manual review. The order describes a proprietary algorithm that sorted records by responsiveness. It does not show that the algorithm learned from data."},"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Judge Anthony J. Battaglia). Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08cv1992 AJB (MDD), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 371), 1 February 2013. GovInfo copy of the filed order.","title":"Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","date":"2013-02-01","written_by":"independent","quote":"For this reason, the review performed by H5 and Black Letter accomplished different objectives with the H5 electronic process minimizing the overall work for Black Letter. Again, the Court finds Cooley's decision to undertake a more efficient and less time-consuming method of document review to be reasonable under the circumstances."}],"replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants collected almost 12 million records, mostly electronically stored information.","H5's technology sorted the records into responsive and non-responsive documents.","Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance."],"must_hold":["The case produces a voluminous collection, here from claims that involved 92 patents.","The rates and hours of the review are reasonable when a court weighs the fees."],"echoes":[]},"paired_incident":null,"headline":"Court credits *H5* review of almost 12 million records as efficient","metric":"almost 12 million records","comparator":{"against":"Manual review of the records","before":null,"after":null,"basis":"assumed","quote":"Rather than manually reviewing the huge volume of resultant records, Defendants paid H5 to employ its proprietary technology to sort these records into responsive and non-responsive documents.","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf"},"later":{"status":"litigated","date":"2014-03-18","note":"The plaintiffs did not appeal the amount of the fee award, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014.","quote":"In this appeal, the Gabriel plaintiffs challenge the merits of the district court's decision to award attorneys' fees under section 285 and CUTSA, but have not appealed the court's determination as to the appropriate quantum of fees.","url":"https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/13-1205.opinion.3-14-2014.1.pdf"},"value":null,"developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States","unrated_because":null,"brief_notes":null,"brief":null,"revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.","source":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}],"confidence":"found","shade":"high","claim_status":"Found by a court","claim_basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","case_jurisdictions":["United States"],"profile":{"case_id":"AIBD-0987","catalog_version":"1.0.0","source_fingerprint":"f683252c371eb296ccb5aa95380913bec8d24c2fbfe8f174babdf46de97ad2d9","collection_refs":[{"collection_id":"aibd","version":"2026-10-31"},{"collection_id":"querist","version":"2026-10-25"}],"source_ids":["AIBD-0987-source-0001"],"families":{"strategic assessments":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"evaluations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"monetary observations":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]},"institutional decisions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"Editorial assignment.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","record_ids":[]}},"fields":{"actors[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"developer":"H5","deployer":"Qualcomm Incorporated and its co-defendants, through their counsel Cooley LLP, with contract reviewers from Black Letter Discovery"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["developer","deployer"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"actors[].ownership_control":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_contribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"ai_relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"category":"benefit created","ai_role":{"status":"unassessed","statement":"The court accepted the defendants' account and compared no costs with a manual review. The order describes a proprietary algorithm that sorted records by responsiveness. It does not show that the algorithm learned from data."}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ai_role","category"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].alternatives":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].assessor_date":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].depth":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"The court found that the algorithm-driven review reduced the work left for contract attorneys, but it measured no saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].display_confidence":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"confidence":"high","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court","basis":"Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","interpretation":"Existing display rule preserved; the richer outcome-specific confidence question still needs review."}},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rationale":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"The court found that the algorithm-driven review reduced the work left for contract attorneys, but it measured no saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].rubric_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].status_basis":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"assessments[].target":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"The court found that the algorithm-driven review reduced the work left for contract attorneys, but it measured no saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"availability":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"brief":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_kind":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"case_links[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_links":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].evidence_strength":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","evidence_word":"found","claim_status":"Found by a court"}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0987-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"Found by a court. Sources: one independent court document. The cited evidence includes no independent study or report.","inferred":false}},"claims[].missingness":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"claims[].proposition":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"cross_border_flows[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"decisions[].action_outcome":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].grounds":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].institution_task":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"decisions[].success_criterion":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"institutional decisions"},"deployment_stage":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"structured","data":{"classification":"routine use","answer":"The system was in routine use. The defendants had finished the review during the litigation, before the court ruled on fees.","scope":"The period and activity described in the case."}},"provenance":{"kind":"source_review","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","evidence"],"source_refs":["AIBD-0987-source-0001"],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-29"},"review_state":"reviewed","coverage":"complete","display":{"answer":"The system was in routine use. The defendants had finished the review during the litigation, before the court ruled on fees.","inferred":false}},"economics[].amount":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].costs[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].counterfactual":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].currency_price_basis":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].gross_net":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].measure_type":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].period_unit":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].realization":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].recipient_payer":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].return_payback":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"economics[].valuation_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"monetary observations"},"evaluations[].ai_uplift":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].comparator":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].design":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].effect":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].exposure":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].id":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].measurement_method":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].metric":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].reproduction_materials":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].setting_sample":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"evaluations[].uncertainty_limitations":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"evaluations"},"external_references[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"follow_up[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"later":{"status":"litigated","date":"2014-03-18","note":"The plaintiffs did not appeal the amount of the fee award, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014.","quote":"In this appeal, the Gabriel plaintiffs challenge the merits of the district court's decision to award attorneys' fees under section 285 and CUTSA, but have not appealed the court's determination as to the appropriate quantum of fees.","url":"https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/13-1205.opinion.3-14-2014.1.pdf"}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["later"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"human_oversight":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"id":"AIBD-0987"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["id"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"infrastructure_dependencies[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiaries":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].beneficiary_count":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].benefit_type":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].claim":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Gabriel Technologies and Trace Technologies sued Qualcomm and two co-defendants, seeking over $1 billion in damages. The court ruled for the defendants and later found that the plaintiffs had pursued objectively baseless claims in bad faith. The defendants had collected almost 12 million records. They paid H5 to sort the records into responsive and non-responsive documents with its proprietary technology. Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance. Ruling on fees on 1 February 2013, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia found that the H5 process minimized the work left for the contract attorneys. He found that counsel's choice of a more efficient and less time-consuming method was reasonable. He wrote that counsel seemingly reduced fees and attorney hours by reviewing electronically at the outset. He held that the $2,829,349.10 for the algorithm-driven review was reasonable and included it in a fee award of $12,465,331.01. The court measured no saving, and the order does not show whether the algorithm learned from data. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014.","benefit_type":"Reduced Task Cost"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","benefit_type"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].distribution":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].duration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].id":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].stakeholder_group":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"ratings":[{"group":"organizational","depth":1,"reason":"The court found that the algorithm-driven review reduced the work left for contract attorneys, but it measured no saving."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["ratings"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].status":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"benefit_status":"reported"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["benefit_status"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].tradeoffs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"outcomes[].unexpected":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"unexpected":false,"purpose":"H5 built its proprietary document review technology to sort large collections of records into responsive and non-responsive documents."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["unexpected","purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"places[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"location":"San Diego, California, United States","developer_country":"United States","deployer_country":"United States"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["location","developer_country","deployer_country"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"purpose":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"purpose":"H5 built its proprietary document review technology to sort large collections of records into responsive and non-responsive documents."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["purpose"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"record_dates":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"date_observed":"2013-02-01","date_basis":"source publication","date_precision":"day","revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.","source":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["date_observed","date_basis","date_precision","revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"replication.attempts[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"replication.conditions":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants collected almost 12 million records, mostly electronically stored information.","H5's technology sorted the records into responsive and non-responsive documents.","Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance."],"must_hold":["The case produces a voluminous collection, here from claims that involved 92 patents.","The rates and hours of the review are reasonable when a court weighs the fees."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"revision_history[]":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"revisions":[{"date":"2026-11-01","change":"Added the record from the finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.","source":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","editor":"AIBD"}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["revisions"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sector":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"domain":"Legal services / e-discovery"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["domain"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].access_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].citation_locator":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Judge Anthony J. Battaglia). Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08cv1992 AJB (MDD), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 371), 1 February 2013. GovInfo copy of the filed order.","title":"Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","date":"2013-02-01","written_by":"independent","quote":"For this reason, the review performed by H5 and Black Letter accomplished different objectives with the H5 electronic process minimizing the overall work for Black Letter. Again, the Court finds Cooley's decision to undertake a more efficient and less time-consuming method of document review to be reasonable under the circumstances."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].id":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["AIBD-0987-source-0001"],"role":"Existing evidence items, in their original order"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"sources[].language":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].relationship":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"evidence":[{"kind":"court document","citation":"United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Judge Anthony J. Battaglia). Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 08cv1992 AJB (MDD), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 371), 1 February 2013. GovInfo copy of the filed order.","title":"Gabriel Technologies Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01992-9.pdf","date":"2013-02-01","written_by":"independent","quote":"For this reason, the review performed by H5 and Black Letter accomplished different objectives with the H5 electronic process minimizing the overall work for Black Letter. Again, the Court finds Cooley's decision to undertake a more efficient and less time-consuming method of document review to be reasonable under the circumstances."}]}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["evidence"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"sources[].upstream_sources":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"strategic_assessments[]":{"state":"unresolved","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial","family":"strategic assessments"},"summary":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"summary":"In February 2013 a US district judge found that H5's algorithm-driven review of almost 12 million records was a more efficient method and held its $2,829,349.10 cost reasonable.","account":"Gabriel Technologies and Trace Technologies sued Qualcomm and two co-defendants, seeking over $1 billion in damages. The court ruled for the defendants and later found that the plaintiffs had pursued objectively baseless claims in bad faith. The defendants had collected almost 12 million records. They paid H5 to sort the records into responsive and non-responsive documents with its proprietary technology. Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance. Ruling on fees on 1 February 2013, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia found that the H5 process minimized the work left for the contract attorneys. He found that counsel's choice of a more efficient and less time-consuming method was reasonable. He wrote that counsel seemingly reduced fees and attorney hours by reviewing electronically at the outset. He held that the $2,829,349.10 for the algorithm-driven review was reasonable and included it in a fee award of $12,465,331.01. The court measured no saving, and the order does not show whether the algorithm learned from data. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014."}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["summary","account"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].autonomy_permissions":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].component_role":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].deployment_configuration":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].inputs_outputs":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_name":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].model_version":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].product_name":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"system":"H5's computer-assisted, algorithm-driven document review (proprietary technology)"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["system"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"systems[].provider":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"taxonomy_crosswalks[]":{"state":"unresolved","provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"reason":"This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.","review_state":"not_assessed","coverage":"partial"},"title":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"title":"A California federal court found that H5's algorithm-driven review of almost 12 million records was more efficient and held its fees reasonable","headline":"Court credits *H5* review of almost 12 million records as efficient"}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["title","headline"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"},"version":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"identifiers","identifiers":["b5a22003d2160e6c4958f758cf8b2215da75b4fc9d002ecc3a1a47e20e9d0fa8"],"role":"SHA-256 of the complete public record and its assessments"},"provenance":{"kind":"curatorial","basis":"SHA-256 of the public record, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.","record_fields":[],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"complete"},"workflow":{"state":"value_present","value":{"kind":"record_fields","fields":{"account":"Gabriel Technologies and Trace Technologies sued Qualcomm and two co-defendants, seeking over $1 billion in damages. The court ruled for the defendants and later found that the plaintiffs had pursued objectively baseless claims in bad faith. The defendants had collected almost 12 million records. They paid H5 to sort the records into responsive and non-responsive documents with its proprietary technology. Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance. Ruling on fees on 1 February 2013, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia found that the H5 process minimized the work left for the contract attorneys. He found that counsel's choice of a more efficient and less time-consuming method was reasonable. He wrote that counsel seemingly reduced fees and attorney hours by reviewing electronically at the outset. He held that the $2,829,349.10 for the algorithm-driven review was reasonable and included it in a fee award of $12,465,331.01. The court measured no saving, and the order does not show whether the algorithm learned from data. The Federal Circuit affirmed the award on 18 March 2014.","replication":{"produced_by":["The defendants collected almost 12 million records, mostly electronically stored information.","H5's technology sorted the records into responsive and non-responsive documents.","Contract attorneys at Black Letter Discovery then reviewed the responsive documents for confidentiality, privilege and relevance."],"must_hold":["The case produces a voluminous collection, here from claims that involved 92 patents.","The rates and hours of the review are reasonable when a court weighs the fees."],"echoes":[]}}},"provenance":{"kind":"legacy_record","basis":"Editorial assignment.","record_fields":["account","replication"],"source_refs":[]},"review_state":"record_mapped","coverage":"partial"}},"summary":{"total":91,"addressed":91,"known":29,"reviewed":2,"reviewed_complete":2,"reviewed_partial":0,"record_mapped":27,"review_not_assessed":62,"not_assessed":0,"complete":false,"by_state":{"value_present":29,"not_reported":0,"unresolved":62,"not_assessed":0,"not_applicable":0,"withheld":0,"source_unavailable":0}}},"presentation_version":"2ff75d64c8fc24f7ed24e56d12dc058e2761c6db9b48d9453876e871b07c6f70"}