Changes

{{McNair ProjectsAcademicPaper|Project TitleHas title=Little Guy (Academic Paper),Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?|Topic AreaHas author=Patents and Innovation,Ed Egan|OwnerHas RAs=Amir Kazempour, Marcela Interiano|Start Term=Summer 2016,|Status=Active,|Deliverable=Academic Paper,|Audience=Academics,|Keywords=Innovation, Small Business,|Primary BillingHas paper status=AccMcNair01,Tabled

An <section begin=Little Guy /> The Little Guy Academic Paper focused will focus on the disproportionate patent litigation provided to disadvantages faced by small firmsand if/how they can be overcome. Lex By using the patent data provided by the USPTO [[Small Entity vs. Micro Entity | micro and small entities]] will be used identified based on maintenance fees paid to acquire data the USPTO. Patent portfolios of all firms contained in both datasets will be constructed, taking into account renewals and reassignments. Comparisons will be draw between frequency and outcomes of litigation for micro, small, and large. Data on patent lawsuitslitigation will be acquired through the [https://lexmachina.com/ Lex Machina database]. We will then explore changes in litigation frequency when small firms are venture backed, are acquired, or transfer their patents to a market intermediary.

<section end==Data Issues=====Citations Table===The table has two columns, 'citingpatentnumber' and 'citedpatentnumber'. There are rows with 'citedpatentnumber' greater than 10000000. For instance:Little Guy />

citingpatentnumber | citedpatentnumber ==Introduction== The `Little Guy' paper will try to investigate potential asymmetries in patent litigations involving `small' firms. The asymmetries could arise in pre-judgment settlements or post-------------------+------------------- 9226901 | 102005013726 9226905 | 101332187 9226905 | 2006528175 9226905 | 2011513304 9226905 | 1020090061010 9226905 | 1020110049808 9226905 | 2010126349 9226909 | 101340916 9226909 | 10128910 9226914 | 102318827 9226914 | 2014109862 9226915 | 10111049 9226918 | 2008005345 9226918 | 2008005345 9226918 | 2008077092 9226918 | 2008077092 9226918 | 2008070268 9226918 | 2008128126 9226921 | 2008129994 9226922 | 2012000595 9226922 | 2012058127 9226923 | 2010135524 9226930 | 102002040 9226930 | 19507522 9226930 | 50106981 9226930 | 53082783 9226930 | 57052334 9226930 | 10029979 9226930 | 10045750 9226931 | 2008203212 9226931 | 2010227111 9226931 | 2012068515 9226931 | 2013106565 9226932 | 103458880 9226933 | 2006257751 9226933 | 101366734 9226933 | 101396048 9226933 | 101926831 9226933 | 20202562 9226933 | 202005009120 9226933 | 61063618 9226937 | 11510473 9226937 | 2001506579 9226937 | 2001519791 9226937 | 2003119127 9226937 | 2003517831 9226937 | 2005099761 9226937 | 2006076681 9226937 | 2006078941 9226937 | 2006079021 9226937 | 2006094209 9226937 | 2006094210 9226937 | 2006094233 9226937 | 2006094235judgement outcomes. One hypothesis is that `small' patent holders are at a disadvantage in protecting their patent rights.

allpatent_clone=# SELECT Introduction of the America Invents Acts provides the small companies which qualify for a Micro Entity status to pay a discounted fee for maintenance of their patents. The maintenance fee code recorded in data would be used COUNT(*) FROM citations WHERE citedpatentnumber IS NULL; count to identify the little guys. We believe micro entity status would ---------- 23516667 (1 row)better fit the definition of a small entity used in our paper. Relying on maintenance fee codes would enable us to identify a small subset of micro entities, however, we are trying to retroactively identify other companies which may qualify for micro entity status but were not captured through the maintenance fee data.

allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM citations; count ---------- 97680838 (1 row) ====Possible Solution====Jul 8, 2016: The blank citedpatentnumbers were created due to inconsistency between Our analysis would heavily rely on the original type and the type in the citation table (string to integer)litigation data available through Pacer or Lex Machina data set. The blank entries mostly correspond to publication numberIdeally, non-U.S. patent number, and non-standardized patent number. The next step we would be like to recreate have the table accounting following variables for these issues. The U.S. publication number could be matched to the publications numbers in the histpatent table and be replaced by the corresponding patent numbers.  The foreign cited patents will be moved to a separate table. ===Assignees Table==='Country' is missing.  allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM assignees WHERE country=' '; count time frame of 2000-01-------- 2361543 (1 row)   allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM assignees WHERE country='unknown'; count ------- 3918 (1 row)  allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM assignees WHERE country IN ('unknown',' ') AND state=' '; count --------- 1851353 (1 row)  UPDATE: The source of the problem seems 01 to be present for all the Harvard Dataverse. ===Assignees & assigneesUSU Tables=== No information provided about the assignee. No entries for orgname or first and last names.   allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNTpatent cases (patentnumber) FROM assignees WHERE (orgname='' OR orgname IS NULL) AND (firstname='' OR firstname IS NULL) AND (lastname='' OR lastname IS NULL); count -------- 344794 (1 rowcode 830) AssigneesUSU table was made with the following code:  SELECT orgname, patentnumber, country, firstname, lastname, state INTO assigneesUSU -- assignees litigated in US,unknown, and blank entries FROM assignees WHERE country IN ('US', '', 'unknown') OR (state IS NOT NULL AND state!='') ORDER BY orgname;   allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(patentnumber) FROM assigneesUSU WHERE (orgname='' OR orgname IS NULL) AND (firstname='' OR firstname IS NULL) AND (lastname='' OR lastname IS NULL); count -------- 344793 (1 row)district courts.