DOAR, the nation’s leading trial consulting company, has officially published the results from its comprehensive study, which was designed to examine public attitudes in the context of high-tech patent litigation across four major IP venues.
Going by the available details, this particular exercise, over the course of its journey, would go on to learn significant demographic differences in how potential jurors view Big Tech companies, foreign corporations, and patent validity, with implications for litigation strategy in intellectual property disputes.
More on the same would reveal that, named as Juror Attitudes Toward High-Tech Companies in Patent Litigation, the stated report was put-together by DOAR Research Center, taking into account the opinion of more than 1,631 respondents across four major IP venues: the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, the Central District of California, and the District of Delaware.
“The landscape of IP litigation continues to evolve, with recent changes in venue assignments and judicial appointments reshaping the strategic calculations for patent cases,” said Dr. Chad Lackey, Director at DOAR and author of the study. “Our research challenges traditional assumptions about venue selection, revealing that demographic factors like age and income often carry more weight than geographic location.”
As for the results, we begin from the prospect of surprising support for Big Tech, as an estimated three-quarters (73%) of all respondents had positive opinions on large technology companies, though attitudes varied significantly by company, with Meta viewed most negatively.
Next up, the survey covered concrete challenges for foreign companies. This translates to how 71% of respondents were found to believe that foreign companies doing business in the U.S. are more likely, than U.S. companies, to disregard the country’s law. Out of the relevant lot, older respondents would go on to express the strongest bias.
Another detail worth a mention is rooted in demographics’ supposed advantage over geography. You see, age, education, income, and political affiliation were deemed to have a much greater impact on tech-related attitudes than venue. The stated piece of treads up a long distance to emphasize upon the importance associated with jury composition in IP litigation.
Hold on, we still have a few bits left to unpack, considering we haven’t yet touched upon education and income’s potential role in driving patent skepticism. We get to say so because, in the Marshall Division, a majority of higher-educated (59%) and higher-income (54%) respondents said patent examiners were “very likely” to make serious mistakes when evaluating patents.
Such a reality, like you can guess, makes these specific demographics prone to validity challenges.
We also haven’t touched upon the presence of a generational divide on patent trolls. Basically, public opinion on non-practicing entities (NPEs) was evenly split across venues. Nearly 60% of respondents under 45 viewed NPEs as champions of small innovators, whereas on the other hand, 59-66% of those over 55 viewed them as opportunistic “leeches” filing frivolous lawsuits.
Rounding up highlights would be a particular finding revolving around how most respondents across all venues (73-79%) preferred learning about advanced technology from industry executives rather than academic experts.
“The implications of our research extend beyond venue selection to the heart of effective trial preparation and jury selection,” said Dr. Lackey. “While regional differences exist, they are often overshadowed by the more profound impact of demographic characteristics. Understanding these dynamics is critical not just for jury selection but for crafting persuasive arguments that resonate with the specific composition of your jury pool.”
