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,|Start Term=Summer 2016,|StatusHas paper status=Active,|Deliverable=Academic Paper,|Audience=Academics,|Keywords=Innovation, Small Business,|Primary Billing=Dr. Edward Egan,Tabled

An <section begin=Little Guy /> The Little Guy Academic Paper focused will focus on the disproportionate 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 firmsare venture backed, are acquired, or transfer their patents to a market intermediary.  <section end=Little Guy /> ==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 will 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 acquire 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 on patent lawsuits.

==MicroOur 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-entity under Leahy01-Smith America Invents Act==Under section 123 of 01 to present for all the United States Code Title 35 an applicant would qualify as ''micro entity''if the applicant# qualifies as small entity# has not been named as inventor on more than 4 previously filed patent appliccases (code 830) litigated in district courts.