Big Tech hates strong intellectual property protections, they invest millions to lobby for weaker IP so they can decrease litigation---it’s the key to their business model.

A storm has been brewing in the intellectual property arena involving a growing number of small to midsize technology inventors litigating against Big Tech over patent infringement.

"Now you have Google, Facebook and others having more than 50 cases a year in the United States being filed against them. They can't just bury their head in the sand. Where there is smoke, there is fire," said McKool Smith principal Blair Jacobs.

He believes there may be a changing trend in how these cases are being litigated and ultimately decided in court-usually after several-years of litigation and millions of dollars spent in legal fees. "Juries have been more sympathetic toward small to midsize tech inventors recently," Jacobs said, pointing out that juries appreciate the efforts of the smaller companies in coming up with remarkable inventions. Apple has been hit with several high-stakes patent infringement verdicts, including one favoring VirnetX Holding Corp. forcing the Silicon Valley giant to pay more than $500 million to the data security developer.

Other billion-dollar verdicts, such as one against Cisco brought by the technology developer Centripetal Systems, as reported last month, or another against Intel by VSLI Technology are under repeated judicial review. As ALMs Law.com/Radar found, dozens of IP infringement cases have been filed in the recent months including against Google, YouTube, Amazon.com, Tesla and Netflix. In August of last year, the wireless technology developer PanOptis was awarded $300 million against Apple in a case brought by McKool Smith and Irell & Manella. And earlier this month, USAA was awarded more than $200 million in a patent infringement case against PNC Bank.

Many of these have been brought in the Eastern District of Texas, which continues to be a patent litigation hotspot with the District of Delaware coming in as the second most popular IP litigation venue. But overall, "cases have been spread across the U.S.," according to Jacobs.

"It's a systemic framework, it's kind of a way of doing business," Chris Israel, executive director of the U.S. Alliance of Startups and Inventors for Jobs, said of how Big Tech approaches things. "It's a pretty effective business model for large technology firms to take and absorb intellectual property of smaller, innovative companies," he explained, pointing out that Big Tech has had very little fear that there is going to be a legal recourse.

"It's the single-biggest problem," retired chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul R. Michel told the National Law Journal. Since the formation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in December 2012, the technology IP infringement arena has been "aggravated by the high cost of court litigation and the very long delays."

In addition, since the Supreme Court decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC in 2006, "it's almost impossible for smaller entities to get an injunction," Michel said. "It's the perfect storm," formed by lengthy Patent Appeals Board review processes as well as endless litigation culminating in "the unavailability of injunctions" leaving small technology firms little or no leverage against Big Tech. "It's a terrible breakdown of the system," he added.

Small to mid-size technology developers "have limited resources and need to focus their attention on operating their company," said Andrei Iancu, former undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property in the United States and now partner at the boutique firm Irell & Manella. Pursuing IP infringement litigation in multiple arenas is simply not feasible for many of these firms.

But is that changing?

What may have shifted the equation toward smaller firms is the increased availability of litigation financing options. "Litigation funding has become a major, major equalizer in these type of cases," Jacobs said. His firm is currently involved in IP litigation against large technology companies.

While Burford Capital litigation funders view IP litigation as "higher risk, higher reward style commercial litigation," there are a lot of instances, in which "there is very cutting-edge technology and people are willing to fight hard over it," Burford director Eric Carlson said. The IP and patent specific space "has absolutely seen growth," for his firm year over year.

Meanwhile, technology giants are spending millions of dollars lobbying for IP reform. "They are lobbying Congress heavily to weaken the strength of patent laws because they don't like the fact that they are exposed to litigation," Jacobs said.