Interesting study. For those pressed for time skip to the Executive Summary/Conclusions on page 12 which I copied below. Conclusions 4 and 5 are significant to the discussion at hand.

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/specmapa.pdf/$file/specmapa.pdf

VI. Executive Summary/Conclusion

1. The individuals appointed as special masters are, on the whole, highly qualifiedwith substantial legal experience and strong professional credentials. They are almost exclusively specialists in patent law.

2. The orders appointing special masters universally specify the scope of work ofthe master and usually describe how he or she will be compensated. However, the orders are less compliant with the other requirements of Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 53(b).

3. Special masters tend to be appointed in the most complex (i.e., long duration)of patent cases. These cases are the least likely to be resolved through a negotiated settlement and are among the most expensive and long-lived cases. Masters tend to be appointed after the case has already endured longer than the averagecase, suggesting that the court and parties have recognized the complexityof the issues at hand and seek expert help.

4. Special masters are most likely to be employed to oversee the discovery process or to conduct claim construction. They usually write a report recommending how to handle these issues. Sometimes they preside over the Markman hearing.

5. The reports and recommendations produced by the special masters are nearly always adopted by the court, usually with no modification.

6. The appeal rate among cases in which special masters were employed was comparable to that of the total population of patent cases, as was the reversal rate.

Opty