Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not the Problem Facing America’s Truckers
  • Rowling Foundation Offers to Fund NHS Single-Sex Space Challenges
Commercial Special Features

Casting a Worldwide Net: How Litigation Funders Can Leverage Europe’s New Unified Patent Court

March 14, 2023

Casting a Worldwide Net: How Litigation Funders Can Leverage Europe’s New Unified Patent Court

The following article was contributed by Lionel Martin (Partner, August Debouzy), Pierre-Olivier Ally (Counsel, August Debouzy), Ben Quarmby (Partner, MoloLamken LLP) and Jonathan E. Barbee (Counsel, MoloLamken LLP).  Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is on the cusp of launch, confirmed for this June 1, 2023.  It has been eagerly anticipated by the patent litigation community across the member states—starting with 17 European countries, but expected to extend rapidly to all of Europe minus Poland, Spain, Croatia, and, most notably, the UK. The UPC has been long in the making: over ten years have passed since the agreement was first signed.  What is to be expected of this new court, and what opportunities does it present for litigation funders? Uniformity and Scale.  The principal goal of the UPC is to offer a single, consistent, and coherent court system in Europe for the litigation of patents.  Historically, procedural differences in the member states’ national patent and court systems meant that the timeline of patent litigation could vary wildly from one jurisdiction to the next.  The jurisdictions also differed on substance: infringement, validity, and injunctive relief rulings were not consistently applied across the board.  And the one way in which the national jurisdictions were similar—comparatively low damages models—acted as further disincentive for patent owners looking to enforce their rights. The UPC promises to overhaul that system entirely.  It is expected to issue speedy judgments on both infringement and validity.  It should set the scene for damages verdicts that are not only more consistent across jurisdictions, but also generally much greater in size—as one would expect for verdicts covering at least 17 member states.  And it promises greater accessibility and uniformity insofar as English will be the preeminent language of infringement proceedings in any matter involving allegations of infringement extending beyond a single member state. The UPC must now live up to that promise, and there is some uncertainty as to how the system will play out in its early stages.  Will the court be able to keep up the expected pace?   What standards will the court rely on when imposing preliminary injunctions?  How will damages awards be limited or expanded?  How will the appellate process work?  How will early litigants help shape the law and jurisprudence of the UPC? Those questions and many more will have to be answered in the coming months and years.  But if the UPC delivers on even part of its promised mandate, it may represent an exciting new arena for litigation funders working with patent owners to enforce their rights.  Indeed, there is reason to believe that the court will strive to be patentee-friendly—at least at the outset—in order to attract its “customers”. Opportunities for Litigation Funding.  Many of the key features of the UPC as currently contemplated, align neatly with the incentives and priorities of litigation funders and patent owners.
  • Broader Geographic Reach. The UPC makes multi-jurisdictional patent campaigns cost-effective and efficient by allowing plaintiffs to target infringement across at least seventeen countries in one court proceeding.  Plaintiffs no longer need to pick and choose the countries in which to enforce their patents.  The reach of the UPC is likely to expand further: the UPC is expected to be integrated into European mutual recognition mechanisms that will allow the UPC’s jurisdiction to extend not only to the EU but also to Switzerland, Norway, and the UK.  While these mutual recognition mechanisms have long existed, national courts have historically been reluctant to rely on them.  The UPC, by contrast, is expected to do so much more regularly.
  • Reduced Transaction Costs. Reliance on a single proceeding across multiple countries will cut down on the costs of litigating in multiple European countries in parallel.  The UPC will therefore dramatically reduce the resources necessary to launch and maintain a multi-jurisdictional campaign in the EU.  The UPC will also cut down on the logistics and transactional costs associated with such campaigns.  A plaintiff, for example, no longer needs to hire three separate teams to enforce patents in, for instance, France, Germany, and Italy, and pay additional fees for those three teams to coordinate to ensure coherence across jurisdictions.
  • Short Time to Trial. UPC proceedings will expedite the pace of patent campaigns.  Some commentators suggest that proceedings will only take 12-15 months from complaint to final ruling—a significant boon for patent owners looking to promptly and efficiently enforce their rights.  If this holds true, and if sustainable, this pace would rival the speed of some of the fastest dockets among U.S. district courts.
  • Efficient Evidence Gathering Procedures. Unlike the U.S., there is no formal discovery in the UPC, which significantly reduces litigation costs and can expedite proceedings.  But the UPC offers several key features that will be of value to patent owners: (i) plaintiffs may move to seize evidence of infringement from a defendant’s premises, and (ii) they may obtain court orders to force defendants to produce documents.
  • Larger Damages Awards. Since UPC judgments will cover more countries and consumers, the potential damages awards should be considerably larger than they would be in a single jurisdiction.  This should help drive up the value of settlements, and put more pressure on defendants to settle earlier.  It also radically tips the scale on the economics of patent litigation funding in the EU.  Suddenly, the EU becomes an attractive venue in-and-of-itself for funders—not just an ancillary venue in support of higher-stakes U.S. litigation.
  • Broad Injunctive Relief. The UPC will allow patent holders to seek injunctive relief across multiple countries in one shot.  This too should help drive bigger and earlier settlements—a boon for funders looking for a rapid return on their investment. 
  • High-Quality Decisions. It is expected that the Court will render first-rate decisions for two principal reasons: (i) it has attracted seasoned IP judges from across Europe, and (ii) the judges consist of a mix of legally and technically qualified judges.  Furthermore, due to the high specialization of the Court, the number of judges will be quite limited (<100), which may help contribute to greater respect for precedent from fellow judges, which in turn leads to greater predictability for litigants.
Will the UPC be able to deliver on all of these fronts?  Only time will tell.  But for a savvy funder looking for an early mover advantage in a relatively underdeveloped market, and with the opportunity to potentially help shape early UPC jurisprudence in ways that will benefit patent owners for years to come, these are exciting times indeed . . . .

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Op-Ed Ties California Litigation Costs to Rising Cost of Living

A commentary published this week argues that California's litigation environment functions as an unofficial tax on businesses and consumers, adding to the state's cost of living at a moment when affordability dominates its politics.

As reported by California Globe, the piece by John Allard, a former mayor of Roseville with more than two decades as a small business owner, sets national tort costs at $529 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2.1% of GDP, and cites projections that the figure could exceed $900 billion by 2030. Within California, the author points to 199 nuclear verdicts between 2013 and 2022 totalling more than $9 billion.

Much of the argument focuses on state-specific mechanisms. Allard highlights the Private Attorneys General Act, noting that claims routed through the state review process resolve 52% faster while workers receive 67% less compensation than in court-filed claims, and describes Proposition 65 as having produced an industry of citizen enforcers, with settlements rising from $26 million across 890 settlements in 2022 to more than $101 million across over 1,300 settlements more recently. The commentary also flags the Gilead "duty to innovate" case as an example of novel liability theories reaching the state's highest court.

Third-party litigation funding appears only in passing, referenced in connection with Georgia's 2025 reforms rather than through California-specific data. That absence is itself notable: the state has no funding disclosure or registration statute, and the op-ed offers no estimate of funded case volume within its cost figures.

The piece is advocacy rather than analysis, and its figures come from tort reform sources whose methodology has been contested. It nonetheless illustrates how the cost-of-living frame is being applied to litigation policy in the largest state yet to legislate on funding, and where a disclosure debate has so far failed to gain traction.

Commercial

Novarex Capital Partners Closes Initial £5 Million Funding Round

London-based Novarex Capital Partners has completed an initial £5 million funding round, with a second round already underway as part of a broader capital programme.

According to ACCESS Newswire, the firm describes itself as a specialist introduction platform focused on private credit, litigation finance and structured capital, identifying opportunities for sophisticated investors seeking access to private markets. The proceeds of the initial round support the working capital requirements of an SRA-regulated law firm engaged in the preparation of eligible claims, operating in accordance with SRA standards and maintaining professional indemnity insurance.

The company said each stage of funding is designed to align with operational requirements while adhering to relevant regulatory frameworks. A second round is advancing, with a further round planned.

The structure reflects a financing model that has become increasingly common in the UK claims market, where capital is deployed against a law firm's working capital needs during claim preparation rather than committed to individual matters. That approach places the funder's exposure at the firm level, tied to the pace at which eligible claims are built and progressed, and depends heavily on the quality of the underlying claim pipeline and the discipline of the regulated firm carrying out the work.

The raise is modest by the standards of the institutional funds that have dominated recent fundraising headlines, but it sits in a segment of the UK market that has drawn scrutiny following a series of failures among smaller funders and claims businesses over the past year. Whether Novarex's staged capital programme reaches its later rounds will offer some indication of investor appetite for law firm working capital exposure at a moment when that risk is under closer examination.

Commercial

Auto Injury Claim Costs Outpaced Medical Inflation for Five Straight Years, Study Finds

Average payments on U.S. auto bodily injury claims rose at more than double the rate of medical care inflation between 2017 and 2022, according to a new Insurance Research Council study drawn from one of the largest claims datasets assembled for the line.

As reported by Insurance Business, the IRC analysed more than 7.4 million auto injury claims closed with payment over the five-year window, pooled from nine insurers representing roughly 43% of the U.S. private passenger auto market. Average bodily injury claim payments climbed from approximately $14,000 in 2017 to more than $20,000 in 2022, an annualised increase of 7.8% that accelerated markedly after 2020.

The study points to attorney involvement as a central variable. Legal representation among claimants rose from 40% in 2017 to nearly 50% by 2022, with bodily injury claimants showing the sharpest movement at 11 percentage points, while litigation rates nearly doubled from 10% to 18%. Medical bills increasingly functioned as a multiplier rather than a fixed cost: for each dollar of medical expense, total settlement value rose from $1.80 in 2017 to $2.30 by 2022.

The outcomes data complicates the picture for claimants. Represented claimants saw median closure times of 440 days against under 220 days for unrepresented claimants, and after accounting for medical costs and legal fees, netted $1.40 per dollar of medical bills compared with $1.80 for those without representation. IRC's Patrick Schmid tied the trend to settlement pressures and their downstream effect on auto insurance affordability.

The findings arrive as insurers and trade groups press state and federal lawmakers on third-party litigation funding disclosure, and the report's framing of structural cost drivers is likely to feature in that argument. The dataset's scale gives the numbers unusual weight in a debate that has often turned on contested estimates.