Difference between revisions of "Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{AcademicPaper
 
{{AcademicPaper
|Has title=Little Guy (Academic Paper)
+
|Has title=Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?
 
|Has author=Ed Egan
 
|Has author=Ed Egan
 
|Has RAs=Amir Kazempour
 
|Has RAs=Amir Kazempour
|Has paper status=In development
+
|Has paper status=Tabled
 
}}
 
}}
 
Return to [[Patent Data (Wiki Page)]].
 
Return to [[Patent Data (Wiki Page)]].
Line 9: Line 9:
 
==Abstract==
 
==Abstract==
 
<section begin=Little Guy />  
 
<section begin=Little Guy />  
The Little Guy Academic Paper will focus on the disproportionate patent litigation of small firms. The paper will also explore the disadvantages small firms may face in patent litigation. By using the patent data provided by the USPTO and Harvard Dataverse, [[Small Entity vs. Micro Entity | micro and small entities]] will be identified based on maintenance fees paid to the USPTO.  Patent portfolios of all firms contained in both datasets will be constructed. By making the distinction between micro, small, and large, comparisons will be draw between frequency and outcomes of litigation. Data on patent litigation will be acquired through the [https://lexmachina.com/| Lex Machina database].
+
The Little Guy Academic Paper will focus on the patent litigation disadvantages faced by small firms and if/how they can be overcome. By using the patent data provided by the USPTO [[Small Entity vs. Micro Entity | micro and small entities]] will be identified based on maintenance fees paid to 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 litigation 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=Little Guy />
 
<section end=Little Guy />
 +
 
==Introduction==
 
==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-judgement outcomes. Our hypothesis is that `small' patent holders are at a disadvantage in protecting their patent rights.
+
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-judgement outcomes. One hypothesis is that `small' patent holders are at a disadvantage in protecting their patent rights.  
 
 
The only other major work we are aware of which looks into this is (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting}). The authors try to show that small patentees are at a significant disadvantage in protecting their patent rights since their greater litigation risk is not offset by more rapid resolution of their suit. They identify main empirical factors that determine which patents are litigated and try to understand whether small firms with a small patent portfolio are handicapped in the process of protecting their intellectual property rights.  
 
  
Our study would distinguish itself from the already existing literature by providing a new definition of small firm which in (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting})is defined to be those firms with an employment below the median of 5,245 and using of a richer data set which would in turn provide us with a richer universe of patents.
+
The only other major work we are aware of which looks into this is (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting}). The authors try to show that small patentees are at a significant disadvantage in protecting their patent rights since their greater litigation risk is not offset by more rapid resolution of their suit. Our study would distinguish itself by providing a new definition of small firms - in (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting})is defined to be those firms with an employment below the median of 5,245 employees, which is not small - and using of a richer data set that considers backing of small firms and patent reassignment.
  
Our data set is gathered from multiple sources including Harvard Dataverse, USPTO Bulk Data, VentureXpert, and possibly the relevant litigation data for all the patent suits.
+
Our data set is gathered from multiple sources including USPTO Bulk Data, VentureXpert, Lex Machina, and our own data on IPRs, etc.
  
The USPTO Bulk Data and Harvard Dataverse provide us with data on assignment, citation, payment of maintenance fees. We are also working on processing a rich data set on historical patent assignment events.
+
==Notes==
  
 
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  to identify the little guys. We believe micro entity status would  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.  
 
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  to identify the little guys. We believe micro entity status would  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.  
  
 
Our analysis would heavily rely on the litigation data available through Pacer or Lex Machina data set. Ideally, we would like to have the following variables for the time frame of 2000-01-01 to present for all the patent cases (code 830) litigated in district courts.  
 
Our analysis would heavily rely on the litigation data available through Pacer or Lex Machina data set. Ideally, we would like to have the following variables for the time frame of 2000-01-01 to present for all the patent cases (code 830) litigated in district courts.  
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 17:00, 12 March 2019

Academic Paper
Title Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?
Author Ed Egan
RAs Amir Kazempour
Status Tabled
© edegan.com, 2016

Return to Patent Data (Wiki Page).

Abstract

The Little Guy Academic Paper will focus on the patent litigation disadvantages faced by small firms and if/how they can be overcome. By using the patent data provided by the USPTO micro and small entities will be identified based on maintenance fees paid to 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 litigation will be acquired through the 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.

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-judgement outcomes. One hypothesis is that `small' patent holders are at a disadvantage in protecting their patent rights.

The only other major work we are aware of which looks into this is (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting}). The authors try to show that small patentees are at a significant disadvantage in protecting their patent rights since their greater litigation risk is not offset by more rapid resolution of their suit. Our study would distinguish itself by providing a new definition of small firms - in (\cite{lanjouw2004protecting})is defined to be those firms with an employment below the median of 5,245 employees, which is not small - and using of a richer data set that considers backing of small firms and patent reassignment.

Our data set is gathered from multiple sources including USPTO Bulk Data, VentureXpert, Lex Machina, and our own data on IPRs, etc.

Notes

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 to identify the little guys. We believe micro entity status would 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.

Our analysis would heavily rely on the litigation data available through Pacer or Lex Machina data set. Ideally, we would like to have the following variables for the time frame of 2000-01-01 to present for all the patent cases (code 830) litigated in district courts.

References