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

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{McNair Projects
+
{{AcademicPaper
|Project Title=Little Guy (Academic Paper),
+
|Has title=Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?
|Topic Area=Patents and Innovation,
+
|Has author=Ed Egan
|Owner=Amir Kazempour, Marcela Interiano
+
|Has RAs=Amir Kazempour
|Start Term=Summer 2016,
+
|Has paper status=Tabled
|Status=Active,
 
|Deliverable=Academic Paper,
 
|Audience=Academics,
 
|Keywords=Innovation, Small Business,
 
|Primary Billing=AccMcNair01,
 
 
}}
 
}}
 +
Return to [[Patent Data (Wiki Page)]].
 +
 
==Abstract==
 
==Abstract==
An Academic Paper focused on the disproportionate patent litigation provided to small firms. Lex data will be used to acquire data on patent lawsuits.
+
<section begin=Little Guy />
 
+
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.
==Data Issues==
 
===Citations Table===
 
The table has two columns, 'citingpatentnumber' and 'citedpatentnumber'. There are rows with 'citedpatentnumber' greater than 10000000. For instance:
 
 
 
  citingpatentnumber | citedpatentnumber
 
--------------------+-------------------
 
            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 |        2006094235
 
  
 +
<section end=Little Guy />
  
allpatent_clone=# SELECT  COUNT(*) FROM citations WHERE citedpatentnumber>10000000;
+
==Introduction==
  count 
+
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.
---------
 
1411140
 
(1 row)
 
  
 +
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.
  
  allpatent_clone=# SELECT  COUNT(*) FROM citations WHERE citedpatentnumber IS NULL;
+
Our data set is gathered from multiple sources including USPTO Bulk Data, VentureXpert, Lex Machina, and our own data on IPRs, etc.
  count 
 
----------
 
  23516667
 
(1 row)
 
  
allpatent_clone=# SELECT  COUNT(*) FROM citations;
+
==Notes==
  count 
 
----------
 
  97680838
 
(1 row)
 
  
===Assignees Table===
+
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.  
'Country' is missing.
 
  
allpatent_clone=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM assignees WHERE country='';
+
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.
  count 
 
---------
 
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)
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<includeonly>
 
[[Category: McNair Projects]]
 
</includeonly><!-- flush -->
 

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