Trending Now
Community Spotlights

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

By John Freund |
October 8, 2024

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

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
Commercial

Litigation Funding Ethics: What Attorneys Must Weigh Before Saying Yes

By John Freund |

Third party litigation funding has evolved from a niche financing option into a mainstream tool for law firms seeking to manage risk and pursue complex or capital intensive cases. As funding becomes more accessible, attorneys are increasingly evaluating whether outside capital can support growth, extend runway, or enable representation of clients who might otherwise lack resources. However, the expansion of litigation finance has also brought renewed scrutiny to the ethical considerations lawyers must address before entering into funding arrangements.

An article in JD Supra outlines several critical issues attorneys should consider when evaluating third party funding. One of the most significant distinctions is between contingent funding arrangements and traditional non recourse loans. In contingent structures, funders receive a percentage of any recovery, which can raise concerns under long standing prohibitions against fee sharing with non lawyers and doctrines such as champerty. While a handful of jurisdictions have relaxed these rules, most states continue to prohibit arrangements that resemble equity participation in legal fees. Attorneys operating across jurisdictions must be particularly cautious to ensure compliance with applicable professional conduct rules.

Even traditional funding structures can present ethical challenges. Although non recourse loans are generally more widely accepted, conflicts can arise if a funder’s financial interests diverge from those of the client. For example, a lender may prefer an earlier settlement that ensures repayment, while a client may wish to pursue prolonged litigation in hopes of a larger recovery. The article emphasizes that lawyers must retain full independence in decision making and ensure that funding agreements do not give funders control over litigation strategy or settlement decisions.

Client consent and transparency are also central considerations. Attorneys should disclose funding arrangements where required, obtain informed client consent before sharing any information with funders, and remain mindful of evolving court disclosure requirements.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

High Court Refuses BHP Permission to Appeal Landmark Mariana Liability Judgment 

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead welcomes the decision of Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE refusing BHP’s application for permission to appeal the High Court’s judgment on liability in the Mariana disaster litigation. The ruling marks a major step forward in the pursuit of justice for over 620,000 Brazilian claimants affected by the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history. 

The refusal leaves the High Court’s findings undisturbed at first instance: that BHP is liable under Brazilian law for its role in the catastrophic collapse of the Fundão dam in 2015. In a landmark ruling handed down last November, the Court found the collapse was caused by BHP’s negligence, imprudence and/or lack of skill, confirmed that all claimants are in time and stated that municipalities can pursue their claims in England. 

In today’s ruling, following the consequentials hearing held last December, the court concluded that BHP’s proposed grounds of appeal have “no real prospect of success”. 

In her judgment, Mrs Justice O’Farrell stated:  “In summary, despite the clear and careful submissions of Ms Fatima KC, leading counsel for the defendants, the appeal has no real prospect of success. There is no other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Although the Judgment may be of interest to other parties in other jurisdictions, it is a decision on issues of Brazilian law established as fact in this jurisdiction, together with factual and expert evidence. For the above reasons, permission to appeal is refused”. 

At the December hearing, the claimants - represented by Pogust Goodhead - argued that BHP’s application was an attempt to overturn detailed findings of fact reached after an extensive five-month trial, by recasting its disagreement with the outcome as alleged procedural flaws. The claimants submitted that appellate courts do not re-try factual findings and that BHP’s approach was, in substance, an attempt to secure a retrial. 

Today’s judgment confirmed that the liability judgment involved findings of Brazilian law as fact, based on extensive expert and factual evidence, and rejected the defendants’ arguments, who now have 28 days to apply to the Court of Appeal.  

Jonathan Wheeler, Partner at Pogust Goodhead and lead of the Mariana litigation, said:  “This is a major step forward. Today’s decision reinforces the strength and robustness of the High Court’s findings and brings hundreds of thousands of claimants a step closer to redress for the immense harm they have suffered.” 

“BHP’s application for permission to appeal shows it continues to treat this as a case to be managed, not a humanitarian and environmental disaster that demands a just outcome. Every further procedural manoeuvre brings more delay, more cost and more harm for people who have already waited more than a decade for proper compensation.” 

Mônica dos Santos, a resident of Bento Rodrigues (a district in Mariana) whose house was buried by the avalanche of tailings, commented:  "This is an important victory. Ten years have passed since the crime, and more than 80 residents of Bento Rodrigues have died without receiving their new homes. Hundreds of us have not received fair compensation for what we have been through. It is unacceptable that, after so much suffering and so many lives interrupted, the company is still trying to delay the process to escape its responsibility." 

Legal costs 

The Court confirmed that the claimants were the successful party and ordered the defendants to pay 90% of the claimants’ Stage 1 Trial costs, subject to detailed assessment, and to make a £43 million payment on account. The Court also made clear that the order relates to Stage 1 Trial costs only; broader case costs will depend on the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. 

The costs award reflects the scale and complexity of the Mariana case and the way PG has conducted this litigation for more than seven years on a no-win, no-fee basis - funding an unprecedented claimant cohort and extensive client-facing infrastructure in Brazil without charging clients. This recovery is separate from any damages award and does not reduce, replace or affect the compensation clients may ultimately receive. 

Case Developments Commercial

Homebuyers Prepare Competition Claims Against Major UK Housebuilders

By John Freund |

A group of UK homebuyers is preparing to bring competition law claims against some of the country’s largest housebuilders, alleging anti competitive conduct that inflated new home prices. The prospective litigation represents another significant test of collective redress mechanisms in the UK and is expected to rely heavily on third party funding to move forward.

An announcement from Hausfeld outlines plans for claims alleging that leading residential developers exchanged commercially sensitive information and coordinated conduct in a way that restricted competition in the housing market. The proposed claims follow an investigation by the UK competition regulator, which raised concerns about how housebuilders may have shared data on pricing, sales rates, and incentives through industry platforms. According to the claimant lawyers, this conduct may have reduced competitive pressure and led to higher prices for consumers.

The claims are being framed as follow on damages actions, allowing homebuyers to rely on regulatory findings as a foundation for civil recovery. The litigation is expected to target multiple large developers and could involve tens of thousands of affected purchasers, given the scale of the UK new build market during the relevant period. While damages per claimant may be relatively modest, the aggregate exposure could be substantial.

From a procedural perspective, the case highlights the continued evolution of collective competition claims in the UK. Bringing complex, multi defendant actions on behalf of large consumer groups requires significant upfront investment, both financially and operationally. Litigation funding is therefore likely to be central, covering legal fees, expert economic analysis, and the administration required to manage large claimant cohorts.