What are you talking about? 90% of litigation is convincing the judge that existing case law that clearly applies to your case does apply to your case.
Isn't that just in the US/Commonwealth judicial system? I could be completely wrong on how others, like non-adversarial judicial systems, work and/or how pervasive the US system is or is not.
EDIT: specifically around the use of judicial precedent in case-law.
I'm guessing what they're saying is that nothing goes to litigation if it's a clear pattern-match to existing cases, so actual litigation practice is only novel cases.