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

Academics Fact-Check German Business Lobby’s Case for Restricting Litigation Funding

Two competition law academics have published a point-by-point examination of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry's position on collective redress and litigation funding, concluding that several of the central claims advanced in support of tighter restrictions are false, misleading or unsupported.

As set out in a Kluwer Competition Law Blog analysis by Eduardo Silva de Freitas of the Asser Institute and Lena Hornkohl of the University of Vienna, the DIHK statement calls for litigation funders to be brought under supervision comparable to financial market regulation and for funding agreements to be disclosed in full. The authors test five of its underlying assertions.

The DIHK's claim that transparency requirements are lacking is assessed as false: Article 10 of the Representative Actions Directive already establishes disclosure obligations for litigation funding arrangements. The assertion that funders operate in a "nearly unregulated space" is described as misleading, the authors pointing to a European Commission study finding that third-party funding legislation exists in the vast majority of EU member states.

The claim of a widespread consensus that the Directive requires significant improvement is treated as unsupported, with the authors finding no sufficient body of independent studies behind it. The criticism that no minimum registration period applies to qualified entities is called misleading, since Article 4(3)(a) requires 12 months of actual public activity before designation.

The analysis reserves particular attention for the DIHK's figure that funders typically take 20% to 50% of damages. The authors describe this as misleading, noting that German law caps funder remuneration at 10% and that differentiated models operate below that level.

Commercial

Law Firms Turn to MSO Structures to Access Outside Capital and Partner Liquidity

Management services organisations have become a leading route for outside investors to participate in the economics of US law firms without breaching the prohibition on non-lawyer ownership, and the structure is drawing sustained interest from private capital.

As explained in a Nixon Peabody analysis by Allan H. Cohen and Samantha R. Barbere, an MSO is a non-professional entity that provides administrative and support services to a professional practice. The arrangement separates professional ownership from administrative infrastructure: non-licensed investors may own the MSO, while licensed attorneys retain exclusive control of the law firm and all legal work.

The authors identify two principal motivations driving adoption. The first is access to capital, giving firms resources to invest in technology such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity at a time of escalating client demands for efficiency. The second is partner liquidity — the bifurcated structure allows partners to monetise the value of their ownership through a sale to non-professional investors, expanding options beyond traditional buyouts and transactions between lawyers.

Execution requires care. Firms must transfer non-professional assets to the MSO and enter into an administrative services agreement governing the relationship. Critically, fees paid to the MSO must reflect fair market value for the services provided, rather than a percentage of revenue, in order to comply with the fee-splitting prohibition in ABA Model Rule 5.4(a).

For the litigation finance market, the structure matters because it represents a parallel channel for outside capital to reach the legal services sector — one that competes with, and in some cases complements, case-level and portfolio funding as a means of financing law firm growth.

Commercial

Govia Thameslink Class Action Collapses After Funding and Insurance Fall Through

A long-running opt-out collective action against Govia Thameslink Railway has come to an end after the claim failed to secure a replacement class representative backed by adequate funding and insurance, marking one of the more consequential funding-driven failures in the Competition Appeal Tribunal's collective proceedings regime.

As reported by Global Competition Review, the claim has collapsed as a result of funding problems. The proceedings, certified in October 2022, alleged pricing discrimination in the operator's fare structure on behalf of rail passengers.

The claim was left without a class representative following the death of David Boyle, who had brought the action. Walter Merricks, best known for leading the Mastercard collective action, applied to take over the role but withdrew in January 2026 after being unable to obtain after-the-event insurance for the proceedings.

That withdrawal carried its own consequences. As reported by the Law Society Gazette, the Tribunal ordered interim payments totalling £70,000 — £45,000 to the defendants and £25,000 to the estate — finding it "beyond argument" that reasonable costs incurred should be borne by Merricks and his funder, Litigation Capital Management. The Tribunal considered the £337,695 originally claimed to be excessive.

With the proceedings stayed, the Tribunal set a deadline of 4pm on 24 July for an application to approve a suitable replacement class representative, failing which the collective proceedings order would be revoked and the claim decertified.

The outcome underscores how tightly the viability of UK collective proceedings is bound to the availability of funding and ATE cover, and how quickly a certified claim can unravel when either becomes unobtainable.