There is no single price for a patent case. Cost tracks how much is at risk, how many patents and parties are in play, how hard claim construction and discovery become, and whether a parallel PTAB or ITC track is running. Published survey medians are planning tools, not bids from your counsel.
What do public AIPLA survey medians show?
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Report of the Economic Survey 2023 (covering 2022 data) reports median total costs for patent infringement suits, "all varieties," by amount at risk. In that report's summary tables (amounts in thousands of dollars), the medians through discovery, motions, and claim construction were about $300,000 (less than $1 million at risk), $600,000 ($1-$10 million), $1.5 million ($10-$25 million), and $1.5 million (more than $25 million). Through pre-trial, trial, post-trial, and appeal when applicable, the same bands' medians were about $600,000, $1 million, $3 million, and $3.625 million. The survey asked respondents to estimate costs for one patent at issue. Cases involving several patents or defendants can cost more. AIPLA has since issued a 2025 Report of the Economic Survey (posted on AIPLA's site in 2026); the detailed 2025 cost tables were not verified for this article, so the figures here use the publicly documented 2023 medians. Check newer editions before budgeting to a specific number.
What drives the bill the most?
Claim construction and expert fights, document and source-code discovery, multiple defendants or patents, willfulness and damages experts, and parallel IPR or ITC proceedings. Venue and judge practices also matter. A one-patent, early-settlement case looks nothing like a multi-patent competitor war through trial. Section 285 fee-shifting risk can change settlement math even when it does not change the raw burn rate.
Are there ballpark phases?
Many budgets spike around contentions and Markman, again around expert reports and summary judgment, and again for trial prep. Early settlement, walk-away dismissals, or focused PTAB strategies can cut the tail. Contingency, alternative fees, insurance, and litigation finance change who carries cash risk, not the real resource burn. The AIPLA 2023 tables also report separate estimated costs for PGR/IPR stages; those Office-trial numbers are usually lower than a full district trial median in the same survey family, but they are not free and they bring estoppel and timing tradeoffs.
How should a smaller company plan?
Price the first 60-90 days of triage and options analysis separately from "all the way through trial." Consider SKU cuts, design-around, indemnity demands, insurance notice, and settlement structures before assuming a full defense. See the small-seller FAQ for marketplace-focused triage, and the insurance and litigation-finance FAQs for who may share cash risk.
How do owners think about cost?
Owners weigh expected royalties or injunction value against counsel spend and fee-shifting risk under section 285. Some use contingency or funding. Weak cases that linger can become fee-exposure stories; strong cases may still settle early when both sides see the cost curve. ITC dual-track campaigns add a separate burn for import pressure that district damages alone do not capture.
Where should I read next?
See the small-seller budget FAQ, the patent-litigation-insurance FAQ, the litigation-finance FAQ, the settle-early-license FAQ, the typical-timeline FAQ, the attorneys-fees FAQ under section 285, and the longer sued FAQ if papers have already landed.