Argus analyzes millions of court documents to reveal judge-specific tendencies, streamline motion analysis, visualize reasoning, and power deep research—giving your team a strategic edge.
Insights derived from decisions across:
N.D. Cal. (San Jose Division) / 9th Circuit
For trademark PIs, Judge Koh meticulously analyzes the Winter factors, with significant weight placed on likelihood of success (esp. likelihood of confusion) and irreparable harm. Balances equities carefully.
PI Grant Rate (Trademark)
40%
Highly fact-dependent.
Finding of Irreparable Harm Rate
55%
Post-eBay, requires clear evidence, not presumption.
Avg. PI Decision Time
30 days
From hearing or final submission.
More explicit demand for concrete evidence of irreparable harm following key SCOTUS decisions (eBay).
Key shift observed around Post-2006 (Based on 28 decisions).
View Trend Analysis »Argus identifies key legal concepts and matches them to similar cases, revealing hidden connections and precedents.
Find conceptually similar cases across practice areas.
Plaintiff construction company alleges defendant property owner breached contract by failing to make milestone payments after significant design changes were requested verbally, leading to work stoppage. Defendant claims changes were within scope and plaintiff delayed unreasonably...
S.D.N.Y. - 2022-11-01
Key Matched Concepts/Terms:
Relevant Snippet Preview:
...court analyzed whether the alleged **verbal change orders** modified the contract terms regarding **milestone payments**. Defendant's argument regarding **unreasonable delay** was weighed against evidence of the owner's own contribution to the **work stoppage**...
Cal. Superior Ct. - 2023-01-15
Key Matched Concepts/Terms:
Relevant Snippet Preview:
...similar to the present case, ConstructCo involved disputed **design changes** and subsequent **failure to pay**. The court focused on whether the changes constituted a cardinal change, excusing performance...
Ask broad legal questions or describe complex scenarios. Argus searches millions of decisions conceptually and synthesizes findings into actionable reports, focused on specific judges.
Research Memo for Judge: Hon. James Donato
On Topic: "AI inventorship and patent eligibility under Alice for Judge James Donato"
Judge Donato applies the Alice/Mayo framework for § 101 patent eligibility strictly, especially for software-related patents. Regarding AI, he would likely view claims skeptically if they merely automate abstract processes (like data analysis or task allocation) using AI without a specific, concrete technical improvement or inventive application. His focus is on whether claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 1) and, if so, whether they contain an 'inventive concept' that is 'significantly more' than the idea itself (Step 2). Generic use of AI likely fails Step 2 under his analysis. On AI inventorship, Judge Donato is bound by current Federal Circuit precedent stating only natural persons can be inventors. Thus, AI cannot be named an inventor. The key issue for him would be the eligibility of inventions developed with AI assistance by human inventors, analyzed under his established rigorous Alice framework. Recent USPTO guidance reinforces that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically ineligible but require significant human contribution for inventorship and must meet the standard Alice eligibility criteria, focusing on practical application and technical improvement rather than just the abstract AI process. His recent decisions show his continued focus on whether claims offer a concrete improvement versus reciting abstract ideas implemented on generic hardware/software.
Judge Donato's rigorous § 101 analysis will likely continue for AI inventions. Expect scrutiny on whether the AI is merely a tool for an abstract task or part of a concrete technical solution that improves computer/system functionality. Claims must clearly articulate the inventive concept beyond the AI itself, supported by the specification. Human inventorship (requiring significant contribution per USPTO guidance) remains essential under current law. Purely AI-generated concepts without specific, human-directed application solving a technical problem face a high risk under his § 101 analysis.
Argus analyzes court decisions providing clarity and strategic advantage through unique AI-driven features.
Visualize judge-specific tendencies, key citations, reasoning patterns, and potential leanings based on their past opinions.
Automatically identify motion types, outcomes, and the crucial factors driving the court's ruling, synthesized for quick analysis.
Trace the court's step-by-step logic interactively. See how legal standards were applied to facts for each key issue.
Go beyond keywords. Ask complex questions and receive AI-synthesized research reports identifying key themes, cases, and trends.
Our algorithms are developed using millions of judicial opinions providing broad and deep analytical capability.
Judges Analyzed
Court Opinions Processed
Federal & State Coverage
Our platform harnesses the power of machine learning and natural language processing to transform raw legal data into actionable insights.
We aggregate and process decisions from federal and state courts, extracting text and metadata using advanced OCR and NLP.
Federal
District & Appeal
State
Appellate & Supreme
Bankruptcy
All Districts
Metadata
Dates, Judges, etc.
We utilize state-of-the-art algorithms, fine-tuned on legal text, to analyze reasoning patterns, summarize complex decisions, and understand judicial preferences.
Access insights through an intuitive interface featuring interactive visualizations, deep search, and clear summaries connected directly to the source documents.
Leverage Argus's deep analysis capabilities across various stages of litigation and research.
Quickly understand outcomes, dissect reasoning, and tailor arguments based on judge preferences.
Gain deep insights using the Mind Map. Understand citation patterns, concepts, and tendencies for oral arguments and briefs.
Use Conceptual Search for analogous cases. Get research memos for complex legal questions focused on specific judges.
Standardize analysis with Reasoning Chains and summaries. Share judge insights easily across teams.
Join forward-thinking legal teams leveraging Argus for deeper insights, smarter strategies, and better outcomes.