Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Phil Goter, Partner, Intellectual Property Group, Barnes & Thornburg

By John Freund |

Clients trust Phillip Goter to enforce and manage their valuable intellectual property. Phil counsels organizations – ranging from startups to Fortune 100 companies – around the world, managing litigation through trial and appeal, thoughtfully obtaining patents and trademarks, conducting pre-suit investigations, advising on regulatory issues, conducting due diligence and freedom to operate analyses, and resolving complex disputes.

Phil leverages his business and industry experience when working with his clients, and they value his strategic thinking and trust his counsel regarding IP strategies that protect R&D investment and product markets.

Phil, who practices in the firm’s Minneapolis office, frequently works with high-tech clients in the computer software and hardware space. His keen familiarity with computer hardware, standards-essential cellular infrastructure, 5G, GPS, mobile apps, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer and network security, VoIP, wireless networking, home automation, medical devices, and cloud computing aid him in providing successful outcomes for his clients.

He has deep experience providing counsel to international businesses on U.S. intellectual property matters, including representing European and Asian consumer electronics, networking and telecommunications, and pharmaceutical companies in global IP disputes. His practice includes patent litigation in U.S. district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the majority in key patent litigation venues such as Texas, Delaware, and California.

Phil also has significant experience with complex economic matters and his cases have included competition law issues, such as monopolization, attempted monopolization, and Walker Process and sham litigation claims. He has successfully obtained lost profits verdicts in pharmaceutical cases and has commissioned and used numerous expert surveys in litigation to prove infringement, indirect infringement, rates of infringement, apportionment, lost profits, and value of the invention.

He also has in-house counsel experience. Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Phil was an investment manager and legal counsel for a global, publicly traded litigation finance and legal risk management company. He advanced the company’s IP initiatives globally and handled U.S. litigation matters through the entire life cycle of the litigation funding relationship, including sourcing, evaluating, and monitoring IP and commercial investments through to resolution.

Outside of his legal practice, Phil teaches intellectual property at the University of Minnesota Law School and can often be found at the hockey rink, coaching his three children’s youth hockey teams.

Company Name and Description: With more than 800 attorneys and other legal professionals, Barnes & Thornburg is one of the largest law firms in the country. We serve clients worldwide from offices in Atlanta, Boston, California, Chicago, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, South Florida, Texas and Washington, D.C. We provide guidance in more than 50 dedicated practice areas, including litigation, intellectual property, labor and employment and corporate law. We are where you need us. Find out more at btlaw.com.

Company Website: btlaw.com

Year Founded: 1982

Headquarters: Largest office is in Indianapolis

Area of Focus: Intellectual property

Member Quote: Litigation finance has become an increasingly important financial tool for IP owners, who often find themselves disadvantaged by large, well-capitalized competitors. In this lopsided dynamic, non-recourse capital from trusted legal funders gives me the ability to right the harms inflicted upon my clients.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.