For the past 15 years, Brazil has suffered one of the world's most chronic and severe backlogs of pending patents. Now, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), is looking to reduce that backlog in one fell swoop: by granting patent rights until 2020 to 231,000 pending applications with no examination. The Brazilian government is seeking to introduce this emergency measure as an "extraordinary solution" to the crisis that has plagued the nation's patent market for a generation. Brazil's patent problems arose after it enacted the Patent Statute in 1996, making the nation TRIPS compliant and expanding its range of patentable products and industries. As a result, the number of patent filings has increased 200% over the last 15 years, without a corresponding increase in PTO examiners. Brazil's current average waiting time for all technological patents is over 10 years. For pharmaceutical and telecom patents, the average wait time is over 13 years. According to the PTO, the current number of examiners (326) is sufficient to handle the present influx of new filings, however it is the backlog that is keeping the PTO in check. Therefore, the PTO has floated the idea that 231,000 pending patents within the backlog (not including pharma patents, which are covered by a separate regulatory body) be immediately granted with no examination required. Here's where things get tricky, however: a third party would maintain the right to file a pre-grant opposition within 90 days of the automatic patent filing. Should a pre-grant filing take place, the patent application would automatically be reviewed by the PTO. Companies could then theoretically check the automatic patent application list for competitor patents, and file a pre-grant opposition in order to remove their competitors' patents from the queue. Of course, that type of action would require an upfront legal spend. Perhaps this is an area that astute litigation funders in the market could pursue-- There is additional concern, of course, that patents granted via the automatic waiver may in the long run be vulnerable to invalidity challenges in post-grant opposition, as well as the Federal Courts. Local and state judges may also be reluctant to enforce patent decisions in cases involving patents obtained through automatic application. The PTO itself is not beyond judicial reproach; there have already been numerous lawsuits against the PTO grounded on the unlawfulness of the lengthy backlog, which have successfully compelled the PTO to examine a patent application by means of a court order. So it's not a given that the PTO's automatic grant will be accepted by state and even federal courts. Again, these are all nitty-gritty details that could play out in the litigation finance industry's favor, should the PTO move ahead with its suggested 'extraordinary solution.'

Evolution. Maturity. Growth spurt. Those are the terms one might use to describe Litigation Finance in 2017.  The industry saw a flurry of activity that would make any beehive jealous: Markets opened, funds raised, legal precedents established, and a host of new entrants already looking to disrupt the lit fin industry, which itself is in the midst of disrupting one of the oldest institutions on the planet. So let's take a look back at how Litigation Finance 'took off the training wheels,' and properly came of age in 2017... First, let's state the obvious: As litigation costs have soared globally, more and more companies and law firms are turning to third party funding to finance their legal claims. While legal questions remain over issues concerning disclosure, enforceability, privilege, and costs and security for costs, generally courts have held a favorable view towards third party funding, with rare exceptions. Globally, litigation finance is on the march. New markets opened in Singapore and Hong Kong, international arbitration is cementing its presence in Brazil, and funders are opening shop in countries all around the world, from New Zealand to Canada and everywhere in between. In terms of the funding specifics, Burford Capital - the world's largest litigation funder - conducted a 2017 Litigation Finance Survey. Their findings show the most requested types of financing by practice area:

1. IP/Patents
2. Contract
3. Business Torts
4. Asset Recovery
5. International Arbitration
6. Monetization Of Pending Legal Receivables
7. Bankruptcy/Insolvency
8. Antitrust/Competition
9. Securities
10. Fiduciary Duty
11. Fraud
12. Tax Disputes

Notably, over the last 12 months, among AmLaw 100 ranked firms, 74 made at least one request for financing from Burford or represent a client who did. Burford also tops the list in terms of fundraises, having launched a $500MM investment vehicle in 2017. Not to be outdone, Chicago-based Longford Capital also raised $500MM, the largest such fund in North America. IMF Bentham raised an aggregate $350MM over 3 fundraises - all taking place in 2017. And other firms such as LexShares and Pravati Capital both raised investment vehicles. New entrants, both large and small, also made a splash in 2017. Nick Rowles-Davies launched his long-awaited fund, Chancery Capital, and boutique shops like TownCenter Partners expanded their presence nationwide. Meanwhile, 2017 also saw the expansion and launch of potential industry disruptors, like CrowdJustice (which expanded from the UK into the US), Facebook Personal Fundraising (which launched this year and has the potential to disrupt consumer legal funding), and of course, Legalist, which has been making highly-publicized moves to attract attention and gain market share. Peter Thiel - the 'Godfather of Litigation Finance' (I'm trying to coin that... if it catches on, you heard it here first!) - invested in the Silicon Valley-based startup, which aims to disrupt the lit fin industry by using algorithms instead of lawyers. Think about that: Litigation Finance is disrupting the world's legal system, and now a startup is trying to disrupt the disruptor! But wait - I've saved the best for last! 2017 is also the year that the FIRST AND ONLY dedicated news source to the litigation finance industry opened its doors. Any idea who I'm talking about...? NO??? Well here's a nifty article that might help jog your memory... All said, 2017 was a turning point. This is the year that lit fin finally went mainstream. Everyone from in-house counsel to private practice litigators to Wall Street investors to lawmakers around the world are perking up and taking notice. We're excited for what 2018 has in store, and eagerly anticipating the industry's inevitable expansion both in the United States and globally. Here's to a memorable 2017, and to even bigger news stories on the horizon... Happy 2018 everyone!!

By Mauritius Nagelmueller This article aims to provide an overview of the most significant recent developments in the litigation finance industry. Part 2 of this 2-part series discusses the rapid growth of litigation finance across the globe, as well as its multi-dimensional expansion into diverse markets. If you’d like to reference Part 1 of this series, you can find it here. Growth The most significant overall trend in litigation finance is simply put: growth – a vibrant and ongoing increase in the use and acceptance of the industry. Litigation finance has emerged from a promising niche into a mainstream alternative asset class. The use has multiplied in the recent years, and among many other characteristic features, investors are attracted by the chance to diversify their portfolios with uncorrelated assets. The demand in the legal world is still much higher than the supply of litigation finance – an indicator that normally only the best cases are receiving financing. By now, the business spans the financing of both plaintiffs and defendants, single cases and portfolios, at practically every stage of the dispute, for example also at the enforcement phase. As litigation finance has become a multi-billion-dollar business, surveys and reports by universities and journals, as well as financing providers point to its continued growth, with no signs of stopping any time soon. While detailed data grows increasingly available, it is hard for reporters or councils to keep pace with the industry, which continues to evolve before initial research can proffer valid conclusions. While this powerful forward movement promotes access to justice in the eyes of many, the impact on the civil justice system concerns others. Calls for more rules and regulation regarding inter alia, disclosure and conflicts of interest remain loud. Whichever side one chooses, the market for this service is growing, the demand enormous, and high-quality cases tend to find high-quality finance providers. Expansion For all the reasons stated above, as well as in the Part 1 of this series, 2017 has been the year of expansion for litigation finance firms. New offices in multiple jurisdictions, new funds that are larger or have innovative structures, and broader services providing the full spectrum of finance and risk management related to legal disputes. A wave of new office launches took place in multiple directions internationally. Litigation finance firms from the U.K. entered the U.S. market, and are eager to establish their business in New York City, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, California, and a number of other locales across the U.S. Strategic recruiting, e.g. of former U.S. judges and biglaw partners, builds strong teams in a constantly growing environment, and makes a career in litigation finance a more and more attractive option. Following the developments in Asia described previously, litigation finance firms have opened their first offices in Singapore. The market is also growing in Canada, where local courts have increasingly embraced litigation finance for the past 15 years. International litigation finance and insurance firms seem attracted, and have ventured into Canada this year. And funds are growing bigger accordingly. The largest players have billions of dollars committed to the legal market, able to invest hundreds of millions in a short period of time. The biggest single litigation investment fund in North America has been raised this year, at $500 million. An increase in size is not the only development, however, since crowdfunding and innovative online platforms play a progressively important role, opening the market to an even broader range of participants. Litigation finance has never been one-dimensional, but has included tailored financing concepts and related services like asset tracing for some time. The progress of portfolio financing shapes the market thoroughly. More recently, the range of available insurance options has developed in the U.S., bringing a new variety of sophisticated services, such as contingency fee insurance and attorney fee insurance solutions which can offer a cheaper hedge compared to financing. All in all, it will be fascinating to watch how things play out in the years ahead. Whatever the outcome, 2017 will certainly be remembered as a transformative year for the nascent industry of litigation finance.   Mauritius Nagelmueller has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. This 2-part article is for general information purposes only and does not purport to represent legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of his employer. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information related to this 2-part article without seeking the appropriate advice from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s jurisdiction.

By Mauritius Nagelmueller This article aims to provide an overview of the most significant recent developments in the litigation finance industry. Part 1 of this 2-part series discusses the shifting policies in regard to litigation finance in both the U.S. and across the globe, as well as the potential for technological innovation to disrupt the industry in the near future. Change of Policy A change of policy, including new rules regarding litigation finance, can be witnessed across several jurisdictions globally. In the U.S., the legality and enforceability of litigation finance agreements still varies from state to state. Many of the fundamental differences stem from the doctrines of maintenance and champerty, and each states’ respective interpretations of those doctrines. A number of states, including New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Maine and Nebraska, are mostly viewed as litigation finance-friendly. In states that are less attractive for - or even hostile to - financing, such as Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and others, choice-of-law and forum selection clauses can sometimes be a lifesaver for a strong case in need of financing. While great uncertainty remains in many states across the country (especially in regard to the legality of specific forms and details of litigation finance agreements), we can identify the overall trend towards permission of litigation finance across the land. To name two examples, the New York legislature introduced a safe harbor provision[1] in 2004, excluding third party investments in litigation from the champerty prohibition, where a sophisticated investor puts in at least $500,000. To “enhance New York’s leadership as the center of commercial litigation”[2], the provision has been strongly endorsed by New York courts in recent years. Additionally, Ohio installed some regulation of litigation finance through Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1349.55, thereby overruling a former Ohio Supreme Court decision[3] voiding a litigation finance agreement. The phenomenon of legislative actively smoothing the way for litigation finance is happening on an international scale. In Persona Digital Telephony[4], the Irish Supreme Court affirmed in May 2017 that maintenance and champerty remain a bar to litigation finance. The rule against maintenance and champerty is still in force in Ireland, as per the court, and it is up to the government to amend it through legislation. No one has been prosecuted for these offences in Ireland in more than 100 years, and, according to The Sunday Times, a new Contempt of Court Bill, which was published by a government TD in July 2017, would repeal the ancient laws. And the developments in Hong Kong and Singapore will likely have an enormous impact on the dispute finance industry. Singapore allowed third party funding in international arbitration in early 2017, Hong Kong followed suit only a few months later. In Singapore[5], financing agreements in relation to international arbitration and related court or mediation proceedings are now enforceable. The new law in Hong Kong[6] provides that maintenance and champerty do not apply to third party funding in domestic and international arbitration and mediation. Both jurisdictions add a certain amount of regulation to their new rules, mostly covering conflict of interest and disclosure requirements. Singapore permits only professional funders with a paid-up share capital of not less than SGD 5 million. While the new legislation does not include state court procedures, the covered alternative dispute resolution procedures will serve as a “testbed,” according to Singapore’s Senior Minister of State for Law. Leading litigation finance firms opened new offices in Singapore immediately after their longstanding lobbying efforts in the region turned out to be successful. The first financing of a Singaporean arbitration was announced in late June 2017. The business promises to flourish, especially when first disputes will arise from China’s multi-trillion(!) One Belt One Road trade and infrastructure initiative. The demand for litigation finance is strong in the global market, and financing providers are aggressive in seizing new opportunities. Numerous jurisdictions feel an urge to become, or remain, a prime venue for dispute resolution in various areas of the law, and legislators are amending their legal frameworks accordingly. Litigation finance will carve its way into more and more jurisdictions, embraced by venues which consider this industry vital to their position as prime dispute resolution centers. However, others remain critical of litigation finance and its impact on the civil justice system. Various business groups have proposed to amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure might discuss a disclosure requirement for litigation finance in a subcommittee. Technology Finance, law, and technology are becoming an interdependent complex, and it is advisable to look over the rim of one’s own tea cup to take advantage of these sectors combined. Crowdfunding brings a new twist to litigation finance, artificial intelligence and big data will become vital for sourcing and analyzing cases, and online platforms are growing into a powerful fundraising tool. In legal crowdfunding, individuals can launch online campaigns to seek funding for legal cases. While this might not be the first choice for plaintiffs in large scale commercial cases, it is particularly interesting for cases in the areas of human rights, criminal justice, or environmental cases. Supporters can be reached with the help of dedicated firms, or also via large social networks. Some have called attention to associated ethical risks, and caution lawyers to use such new tools in light of the long-established rules of professional responsibility. Online litigation finance platforms also exist for accredited investors who want to invest in specific cases or portfolios. Investors can sign up, access anonymized information about cases, contribute to the financing, and receive a share of the profit. Before the cases are accepted onto the platform, they must first pass the due diligence of lawyers, and in some cases sophisticated software tools. Such tools increasingly utilize artificial intelligence and big data, both for analyzing and sourcing cases, which is another major evolution in the litigation finance market. Algorithms will more and more help to predict the probabilities of case outcomes, in order to minimize uncertainty. Technological innovation combined with human experience and judgment will ultimately enhance the industry’s ability to spread its wings to as yet untapped markets. Adopting quantitative methods of older industries and absorbing the best possible use of data analytics should play an important role in the future of litigation finance. The largest legal databases are boosting their data analytics components, and while it seems unlikely today that the sophisticated expertise of lawyers can ever be replaced by a software, these tools have the potential to make the work of humans much easier and more effective. If rightly used, they can be a game changer. Artificial intelligence and algorithms are on everyone’s lips, but only a few pioneers have started to take advantage of the new opportunities technology brings to the litigation finance table. Perhaps even further down the road we might see the broader use of case prediction and attorney referral bots, as well as the use of cryptocurrency. Blockchain technology, the enforceability of so-called smart contracts, as well as the use of cryptocurrency (which could serve some interests in litigation finance since privacy can be upheld, but also arouse further criticism for lack of transparency and regulation) are still up in the air, but certainly worth keeping an eye on. Stay tuned for Part 2 of this 2-part series, which will discuss the rapid growth of litigation finance markets across the globe, as well as its multi-dimensional expansion into diverse markets.   Mauritius Nagelmueller has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. This 2-part article is for general information purposes only and does not purport to represent legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of his employer. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information related to this 2-part article without seeking the appropriate advice from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s jurisdiction. [1] Judiciary Law § 489 (2). [2] Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG, No. 155 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2016). In Echeverria v. Estate of Lindner, No. 018666/2002 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2005) the Supreme Court of the State of New York already clarified in 2005 that the champerty statute is not violated in the first place, if the assignment of a portion of a lawsuit’s recovery is not for the “primary purpose and intent” of bringing a suit on that assignment. [3] Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 99 Ohio St.3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721. [4] Persona Digital Telephony Ltd and another v. The Minister for Public Enterprise and others, [2017] IESC 27. [5] Singapore Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2017; Civil Law (Third Party Funding) Regulations 2017; new rules in Singapore’s Legal Profession Act and Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. [6] Hong Kong Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Guest Post by Mauritius Nagelmueller, who has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. Access to justice remains one of the prevailing issues within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), especially for developing countries. To enforce the promise of a fairer trading system, developing country participation in the DSB must be improved, given that relationships between WTO members are predicated on power dynamics, rather than adherence to the rule of law. Third party funding has provided access to justice for claimants with meritorious claims, but with limited financial capacity in the private sector, as well as in investor-state disputes. The industry is also capable of leveling the playing field in the DSB, as it can be utilized by developing countries to finance a WTO dispute. An expansion of the current third party funding business model to include financing sovereigns in WTO disputes would create a win-win situation, by allowing developing countries to bring claims which they otherwise could not afford, and by granting third party funders the opportunity to adopt a more neutral stance towards sovereigns by providing their services in support, rather than in mere contention (as is the case today). And demand is significant, given that most obstacles to developing country participation in the DSB are related to costs, such as high-priced experts that must be brought on to account for a lack of expertise, the fear of economic pressure from the opposing state, and the lengthy proceedings which often place a strain on a developing country’s resources (member states estimate a time frame of 15 months from the request for consultations to the report of the Appellate Body. A period of at least 6 to 14 months should be added to this, as a reasonable period for the implementation of recommendations. Although this time frame is short in comparison to other international procedures, the financial hardship for developing countries can be fatal). The costs of initiating a dispute of medium complexity in the WTO are in the region of $500,000, however legal fees can sometimes exceed $10,000,000. In many cases, developing countries are forced to rely on the financial support of local industries affected by the dispute. This begs the question, why hasn’t there been an influx of third party funders into WTO dispute resolution? There are two chief concerns which seem to keep funders shying away. The first involves the typical remedies in WTO disputes, which regularly circumvent a direct financial compensation that the funder could benefit from. Still, complainants seek monetary benefits, be it through concessions (the losing country compensates the winning country with additional concessions equal to the original breach), or retaliation (the winning country withdraws concessions in that amount). A simple solution to this issue is for the winning party to provide a share of those benefits to the funder. One possibility is to assess the level of harm caused by the illegal measure challenged in the dispute, and accept that as a basis for the compensation of the funder. If the WTO Panel decisions are implemented, and the disputed measures that were found to be inconsistent with the WTO are withdrawn, a certain value of trade is not affected by those measures anymore and can be realized again. Affected industries, or the affected country, can set aside part of the gain to compensate the funder. In the case of compensation or the suspension of concessions, the complainant gains from increased tariff revenue, and is able to compensate the financing entity from a portion of the same. In any event, financial benefits of a winning party can be measured, and any compensation for the funder will represent only a minor percentage of the gained value of trade. The second main concern surrounds the area of enforceability, and whether WTO mechanisms would allow financing agreements. But those would have to be enforced in local courts, and the WTO DSB technically cannot rule on non-WTO agreement issues. However, there are provisions that allow the DSB to engage in arbitration if the parties both agree. A practical solution would therefore be to include an arbitration or dispute settlement provision in the financing agreement that operates outside of the DSB. Based on the aforementioned demand, as well as the practical solutions which can mitigate possible concerns, it is clear that external funding of WTO disputes can provide a flexible, independent and powerful alternative for developing countries to increase access to justice, as well as for developed countries to “outsource the risk” of a WTO dispute. It’s only a matter of time before third party funding makes its way into the WTO. ** A version of this article first appeared in International Economic Law and Policy Blog