American inventors need a fair chance to enforce their patents.

America celebrates inventors. We hold them up as the people who create new industries, new companies, and new jobs. We tell young engineers and entrepreneurs that innovation is the foundation of American competitiveness.

But when an inventor's patented technology is used without permission by a larger company, the story often changes. The question is no longer who invented what. The question becomes who can afford the fight.

That is a problem for inventors, but it is also a problem for the American economy. A patent that cannot be enforced is not much of a property right. It is a promise with no practical remedy.

This is why litigation finance deserves a serious place in the conversation about innovation policy. For independent inventors and small technology companies, litigation finance can mean the difference between having rights on paper and having the ability to defend those rights in the real world.

Inventors are economic infrastructure

American inventors are part of the backbone of American job creation and economic growth. Before there is a product, a company, a payroll, a supplier network, or a licensing program, there is often an inventor who saw a problem clearly and built something new.

The economic evidence supports that view. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper found that patent approvals help startups create jobs, grow sales, continue innovating, and attract investors; approval of a startup's first patent application increased employment growth over the next five years by 36 percentage points on average and increased sales growth by 51 percentage points.

That matters because patents are not just legal documents. For many startups, patents help explain what is unique, what is protected, and why the company deserves investment. The same NBER research concluded that patents help startups grow in part by facilitating access to capital, which then helps transform ideas into products, services, jobs, revenue, and follow-on innovation.

The link between startups and job creation is also clear. The Kauffman Foundation's research using U.S. Census Bureau Business Dynamics Statistics found that startup firms create an average of about 3 million new jobs annually and that, in most years studied, net job growth in the United States came from firms less than one year old.

If we care about job creation, we have to care about whether inventors can protect the assets that help new companies form.

The enforcement gap

The patent bargain is straightforward. An inventor discloses an invention to the public. In return, the inventor receives a limited property right. But that bargain breaks down if the right cannot be enforced.

Patent litigation is expensive, technical, and time-consuming. It often requires specialized counsel, technical experts, damages experts, discovery, claim construction, motion practice, and parallel challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The costs are sobering. AIPLA survey data filed through the USPTO shows median patent litigation costs of about $950,000 through discovery and $2 million through trial and appeal for cases with $1 million to $10 million at risk, and up to $3 million through discovery and $5 million through trial and appeal for cases with more than $25 million at risk.

Inter partes review can add another layer of cost. The same AIPLA survey excerpt lists median IPR costs of $80,000 through filing, $275,000 through PTAB hearing, and $350,000 through appeal.

For a large company, those numbers may be manageable. For an inventor or early-stage company, they can be decisive. The result is an enforcement gap. A small patent owner may have a valid patent and strong infringement evidence, but still lack the resources to stay in the case long enough for the merits to matter.

That imbalance changes behavior. Large companies understand litigation economics. They understand delay. They understand that expert reports, depositions, motions, and appeals all cost money. A defendant does not always need to win immediately on the technology. Sometimes it only needs to outlast the inventor.

That is bad innovation policy. It sends the message that invention is welcome, but only if the inventor can afford years of litigation against a larger company.

Litigation finance as a practical solution

Litigation finance helps correct that imbalance. It gives patent owners access to capital to pursue infringement claims without carrying the full cost themselves. In a typical non-recourse structure, a third-party funder pays some or all litigation expenses in exchange for a share of the recovery if the case succeeds, and the patent owner generally does not repay the investment if the case fails.

That structure is not a guarantee of success. It does not make a weak patent strong. It does not replace good counsel, strong evidence, or disciplined case management. What it does is give a strong case the chance to be evaluated on its merits rather than settled under financial pressure.

Without financing, an inventor may be forced into an early settlement that reflects litigation fatigue rather than patent value. With financing, the inventor can make decisions based on the strength of the claims, the infringement evidence, the damages case, and the likelihood of success.

Good litigation finance also brings discipline. Patent litigation funders typically evaluate patent validity and enforceability, infringement evidence, potential damages, alleged infringer financial capacity, jurisdiction, venue, and other case-specific factors before committing capital.

That diligence can be valuable. A credible funder does not want a weak case. It wants a case where the law, facts, economics, and collection prospects justify the risk. Established funders describe patent litigation finance as flexible, non-recourse capital for patent holders and IP-rich businesses, including single-case funding, portfolio structures, and monetization strategies.

Access to justice is not theoretical

The access problem is real enough that the USPTO has programs designed to address it. The USPTO's PTAB Pro Bono Program supports solo inventors, inventor groups, and inventor-owned small businesses that meet financial thresholds and need free legal assistance before the PTAB.

The same USPTO program refers to "financially under-resourced inventors, inventor groups, and inventor-owned small businesses," while also noting that representation is not guaranteed and the program's size and scope are limited.

That should tell us something. Even the system recognizes that inventors can be priced out of meaningful representation. Litigation finance is one private-market response to that reality. It is not charity. It is risk capital. But when structured properly, it can help close the gap between having a right and being able to enforce it.

Inventors should approach litigation finance carefully. Funding is expensive because patent litigation is risky, slow, and uncertain. The recovery waterfall, funder return, budget controls, settlement consent rights, and termination provisions all matter. Inventors need experienced counsel before signing any funding agreement. The goal is not to trade one imbalance for another. The goal is to create a structure where the inventor has real staying power while preserving proper control of the case.

A fair chance to compete

America cannot claim to support inventors while ignoring the cost of enforcement. We cannot say that inventors are central to job creation and then leave them defenseless when larger companies appropriate their work.

The evidence connecting patents, startups, capital formation, sales growth, and employment growth makes this more than a slogan. It is an economic reality.

Litigation finance is not a cure-all. But for the right inventor with the right patent and the right infringement case, it can be the difference between owning rights and being able to exercise them.

If we want an economy that rewards invention, we need an enforcement system that inventors can actually use. Litigation finance is one tool that helps make that possible.