Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

Navigating Patent Litigation: The Crucial Role of Generative AI Platforms

January 2, 2024

Navigating Patent Litigation: The Crucial Role of Generative AI Platforms

In a landmark decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), Apple’s highest-grossing wearables faced unprecedented importation restrictions, marking a pivotal moment in the protracted patent dispute with medical device-maker Masimo. To put the magnitude into perspective, Apple’s wearables, home, and accessory business raked in a staggering $8.28 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2023. This ruling disrupts the very core of Apple’s most popular and revenue-generating wearables, adding a seismic impact to the already intense legal battle with Masimo. This article delves into the transformative capabilities of Generative AI platforms, shedding light on how these technologies are reshaping both proactive and reactive litigation practices against the backdrop of such a significant industry development. Elevating Efficiency in Patent Litigation: A Generative AI Perspective Strategic Edge for Law Firms and Litigators:
  1. Streamlined Data Management:
    • Generative AI platforms streamline the upload and organization of voluminous case documents, enhancing law firms’ and litigators’ capability to manage data efficiently.
  2. Automated Analysis:
    • Leveraging Generative AI, legal professionals can automate analysis processes, extracting valuable insights from complex datasets swiftly and accurately.
  3. Dynamic Adaptability:
    • Future-ready Generative AI platforms empower law firms and litigators to dynamically adapt to new information or shifting circumstances, providing a real-time strategic advantage.
  4. Investor Collaboration:
    • Building and maintaining a comprehensive roster of investors becomes more manageable, facilitating efficient collaboration and attracting funding partners for legal fees.
  5. Tailored Content Creation:
    • Generative AI platforms excel in generating tailored content for legal motions, analyzing writing styles and logic to ensure persuasive arguments that resonate effectively.
  6. Communication Excellence:
    • Acting as central communication hubs, these platforms foster seamless collaboration and information exchange among legal professionals, enhancing overall communication efficiency.
Empowering Patent Owners in Proactive Management:
  1. Organized Patent Portfolio:
    • Generative AI facilitates the creation of well-organized rosters of patents, providing patent owners with strategic control over their portfolios.
  2. Capital Attraction:
    • Patent owners can leverage organized patent portfolios to attract funding for growth and innovation independently, reducing reliance on traditional fundraising approaches.
  3. Self-Funded Litigation:
    • Generative AI platforms empower patent owners to gain better economic control, enabling them to self-fund litigation cases when required.
  4. Global Coverage:
    • Future-ready platforms offer a comprehensive overview of patents, covering multiple regions and facilitating global enforcement.
  5. Quality Assurance:
    • While maintaining human-in-the-loop functionality, Generative AI ensures robust quality checks and efficient data management.
Masimo vs. Apple: A Glimpse into the Future of Patent Litigation The recent ITC ruling in Masimo vs. Apple serves as a poignant reminder to businesses about the critical importance of being in the driver’s seat when it comes to managing their own patents and capitalizing on innovation. While Masimo, a sizable player in the industry, successfully navigated the legal terrain to secure favorable outcomes, it prompts reflection on how smaller companies might face more significant challenges in achieving similar results. This underscores the significance of businesses taking control of their intellectual property and innovation strategies. For smaller companies, such as those without the resources of a Masimo, being in the driver’s seat is not just a strategic choice but a necessity. The Masimo vs. Apple case illuminates the power dynamic in patent disputes and the role that control over one’s intellectual property plays in shaping the outcomes. Smaller entities, with limited resources, may find themselves at a disadvantage in legal battles, making it imperative for them to proactively manage their patents, navigate legal landscapes, and capitalize on their innovations. Generative AI platforms emerge as a leveling force in this scenario. By harnessing the power of generative solutions, smaller law firms gain a more competitive edge without the need for extensive headcount. This democratization of legal capabilities levels the playing field, allowing smaller firms to stand shoulder to shoulder with their larger counterparts. The transformative potential of generative AI platforms extends beyond just litigation; it opens up avenues for smaller entities to actively participate in the competitive capital market. In essence, a more equitable competitive capital market is crucial for fostering innovation. Generative AI platforms become the key to sustaining this trend. They empower businesses, regardless of size, to actively shape their legal strategies, manage patents efficiently, and capitalize on their innovative potential. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, embracing generative AI not only ensures a fairer competitive environment but also fosters a culture of innovation where businesses of all sizes can thrive.  As the patent community adapts to the demands of complex patent disputes, Generative AI platforms emerge as indispensable tools, revolutionizing both proactive and reactive litigation practices. This nuanced approach empowers law firms, litigators, and patent owners alike, offering a glimpse into the future of patent litigation where efficiency, data-driven strategies, and collaboration take center stage amidst the landmark shifts brought on by significant industry developments. About the author: Joshua Masia, Co-founder & CEO of DealBridge.ai, brings a wealth of experience from leadership roles at JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, and iCapital. With a BS in Electrical Engineering, Josh has spent 15 years shaping technical and business solutions. At DealBridge.ai, Josh leads the charge in transforming private markets. Their platform, powered by Generative AI, automates deal complexities, streamlining origination, due diligence, and distribution. Eliminating traditional processes, DealBridge.ai empowers seamless connections, enhancing the human experience in deal-making. Under Josh’s vision, DealBridge.ai maximizes revenue potential through automation, redefining legal, insurance, and financial transactions. As a trailblazer, Josh and DealBridge.ai usher in a transformative era in deal relationship management.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.