Judge Issues Fierce Defense of Litigation Funding Disclosure Order in Patent Dispute
In the conversation around litigation funding and disclosure, few cases have attracted as much attention as the ongoing proceedings between a Delaware federal judge and Nimitz Technologies, a patent holding company. Since LFJ last reported on Nimitz’s appeal of Judge Colm Connolly’s order for further disclosure regarding its litigation funding arrangements, Judge Connolly issued an 80-page opinion, detailing his reasoning for his order. Outlined in articles by Reuters and Bloomberg Law, Judge Connolly’s opinion went further than ever before by raising the spectre of companies abusing the court system through these patent disputes, and using a “shell LLC” to bring lawsuits without incurring any liability. Connolly re-asserted that despite Nimitz’s protests, the Court retained this “inherent authority” to order disclosure of other parties involved in the case, where there are concerns that their identity is being hidden from both the judge and the defendants. Whilst all participants in the case will have to await the result of the mandamus petition filed by Nimitz, it is clear that the lasting consequences of Judge Connolly’s initial order are far from complete and that the outcome will have a significant impact on the intersection of third-party funding, patent disputes and disclosure. Judge Connolly’s opinion can be read in full here.