An Argument for Greater Transparency in Third-Party Litigation Funding
Disclosure in litigation funding continues to be one of the leading topics of discussion for the industry, particularly driven by recent U.S. patent dispute cases that have led to fiercely contested disclosure orders by federal courts. Whilst funders are largely resistant towards blanket disclosure orders, especially when it comes to the details of litigation funding agreements, one member organization that seeks to deter invalid patent assertions has made the argument for greater transparency. In an op-ed for Delaware Online, Jonathan Stroud, general counsel at Unified Patents, argues that as transparency is a central tenet of the justice system, funders who are involved in financing patent infringement lawsuits should have to meet the same transparency requirements as other participants in court cases. He argues that funders either explicitly or implicitly exert control over the litigation process, therefore it is in the courts’ interest to know both their identity and the degree of influence that these financiers have over the plaintiff’s litigation. Stroud cites familiar arguments that the presence of third-party funders both influence the litigation process, and increase legal costs for all parties. He also echoes recent claims by the Chamber of Commerce and State AG’s that litigation funding by foreign state and non-state actors represents a threat to U.S. security. Stroud concludes by encouraging more courts to follow the recent examples of Judge Connolly in Delaware, and enforce disclosure requirements for funders involved both in patent disputes and other litigation proceedings.
" />
