7,649
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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==
Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation? (view source)
Revision as of 20:45, 28 November 2017
, 20:45, 28 November 2017no edit summary
{{AcademicPaper
|Has title=Little Guy (Academic Paper)Can Small Firms Mitigate their Disadvantages in Patent Litigation?
|Has author=Ed Egan
|Has RAs=Amir Kazempour
==Abstract==
<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 faced by small firms may face in patent litigationand if/how they can be overcome. 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, taking into account renewals and large, comparisons reassignments. Comparisons will be draw between frequency and outcomes of litigationfor 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 />
==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 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.
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 from the already existing literature by providing a new definition of small firm which 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 which would in turn provide us with a richer universe that considers backing of patentssmall firms and patent reassignment.
Our data set is gathered from multiple sources including Harvard Dataverse, USPTO Bulk Data, VentureXpert, Lex Machina, and possibly the relevant litigation our own data for all the patent suitson IPRs, etc.
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==
