From https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w33JdFcSCV5J2qOVfYBk-q6hlB9HugVuEolprYrLXLg/edit?pli=1 District courts have exclusive legal power to make final decisions in patent ownership and infringement lawsuits. This paper shows that when district courts systematically favor plaintiffs over defendants, their biased attitudes stifle innovation and reduce the financial value of firms under their jurisdiction. To arrive at this conclusion, we exploit the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that limits the venues where plaintiffs can file a patent litigation case to defendants' local district courts only. Firms which, following the ruling, have become subject to the jurisdiction of plaintiff-friendly district courts generate fewer patents with lower total market value and invest less in R&D compared to firms subject to the jurisdiction of defendant-friendly district courts.
In simple terms (from Chat-GPT): Consider two imaginary entities: Jane, the plaintiff, and TechCorp, the defendant. Jane can financially benefit by betting that TechCorp's (the defendant's) stock price will drop before filing a lawsuit. This bet can turn a lawsuit that might cost Jane money into a profitable situation if TechCorp's stock price falls. Depending on how aggressively Jane bets against TechCorp's stock, it can either hurt TechCorp more or encourage them to settle the case quickly.
Investigative journalism that leverages and covers financial disclosures: