{"id":1558,"date":"2014-11-12T20:10:18","date_gmt":"2014-11-12T20:10:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cpip.gmu.edu\/?p=1558"},"modified":"2026-02-03T21:21:19","modified_gmt":"2026-02-03T21:21:19","slug":"cohen-et-al-patent-trolls-study-uses-incomplete-data-performs-flawed-empirical-tests-and-makes-unsupportable-findings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2014\/11\/12\/cohen-et-al-patent-trolls-study-uses-incomplete-data-performs-flawed-empirical-tests-and-makes-unsupportable-findings\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] Cohen et al. \u201cPatent Trolls\u201d Study Uses Incomplete Data, Performs Flawed Empirical Tests, and Makes Unsupportable Findings"},"content":{"rendered":"

PDF summary available here<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

I. \u00a0 Introduction<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

A recent draft study about patent licensing companies entitled \u201cPatent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms<\/em><\/a>\u201d<\/em> is making the rounds on Capitol Hill and receiving press coverage. This attention is unfortunate, because the study is deeply flawed and its conclusions cannot and should not be relied upon<\/strong>. If the draft paper is ever published in a peer reviewed journal, it will certainly need to be greatly revised first, with its most notable results likely changing or disappearing.\u00a0 In sum, the study should receive no credit in policy debates<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The study, by Lauren Cohen, Umit G. Gurun, and Scott Duke Kominers, finds that non-practicing entities (NPEs) are \u201copportunistic\u201d because they target defendants that (1) are cash-rich (particularly compared to practicing entity patentees), (2) operate in industries that \u201chave nothing to do with the patent\u201d in suit, (3) are staffed by small legal teams, and (4) are busy with numerous non-IP cases. Additionally, the authors conclude that defendants that lose in patent litigation with NPEs on average have marked declines in subsequent R&D expenditures, on the order of $200 million per year. On this basis, the authors suggest \u201cthe marginal policy response should be to more carefully limit the power of NPEs.\u201d One of the authors has been circulating this unpublished study to congressional staffers to make the case that NPEs have a large negative effect on US innovation.<\/p>\n

II. \u00a0 Critique of the Study<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Professor Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law, and an expert in empirical studies of patent litigation, critiques the most recent, publicly available version of the Cohen et al. study in detail in his response paper, \u201cAre Patent Trolls \u2018Opportunistic<\/em><\/a>?\u201d.[1]<\/a> He finds that the study\u2019s dataset is incomplete and unrepresentative, its theoretical model is flawed, and its empirical models are unsound. Professor Sichelman concludes that neither their findings nor policy prescriptions are justified. Major weaknesses in the study are as follows:<\/p>\n