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
Commercial Deals

LitFin Launches Initiative in France Supporting Women over Essure Implant Complications

By Harry Moran |

When it comes to medical and personal injury group claims, the financial resources that litigation funders provide is often a vital component of their potential success. However, a new initiative tackling a specific medical claim in France also demonstrates the importance of funders working with specialist law firms and local associations who have the requisite knowledge and experience to support these patients.

In a post on LinkedIn, litigation funder LitFin announced the launch of an initiative to support women in France who have suffered or are suffering health complications related to the Essure contraceptive implant. 

The Essure implant is a non-surgical, permanent method of contraception which was introduced in 2001, but in the years following its use has seen thousands of women develop serious health complications from the implant. Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure, stopped the sale and distribution of the device in 2018.

The initiative launched by LitFin is in collaboration with RESIST, an independent French association founded in 2016 that has been campaigning for and supporting women who have been affected by issues following the use of the implant. Legal support for the initiative is being provided by JVL & Associés, a French law firm located in Rouen, Normandy, that specialises in health law and has 20 years of experience in medical accident claims and patient law.

More information about the initiative and upcoming public events hosted by RESIST can be found on the Implant Compensation Claim website.

Commercial Deals

Litigation Lending Services Funding Queensland Health Class Action

By Harry Moran |

When it comes to the important role that legal funding can play in providing access to justice, some of the most important cases are those that seek to offer that justice to communities who have been the subject of discrimination based on their identity.

In a post on LinkedIn, Litigation Lending Services (LLS) announced that it is funding a class action filed by JGA Saddler and brought on behalf of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples against the State of Queensland. The group action focuses on allegations that these communities were subject to racial discrimination by the state in its failure to provide adequate healthcare across Far North and Northwest Queensland.

The representative proceeding, which has been filed with the Federal Court of Australia, represents those people from these communities who were serviced by the North West Hospital and Health Service (NWHHS) and the Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service (TCHHS). It alleges that between 1996 and 2024, the state breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by preventing these communities from accessing healthcare services “in a manner consistent with their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

LLS said that it is “committed to supporting access to justice for communities whose voices are too often overlooked.” In a separate post on LinkedIn, Ella Colantonio, chief investment officer at LLS, said that the class action is “a stark reminder of the role litigation can play in challenging systemic inequality and giving voice to communities that have long gone unheard.”

More information about the Queensland Health Class Action can be found on the claim’s website.

Case Developments Commercial

CAT Releases Judgment Approving £200m Settlement in Mastercard Class Action

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ covered in February, a settlement in one of the largest group actions in UK history remains one of the most significant events for legal funding in 2025. With arbitration between the litigation funder and class representation still ongoing, the formal approval of the settlement will stand as a landmark moment  in the Mastercard proceedings, even if the final chapter on the case is yet to be written.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has today released the judgment granting the collective settlement approval order (CSAO) for the £200 million settlement in the Merricks v Mastercard class action. The approval of the settlement signifies the conclusion of proceedings that have dominated headlines both for the size of the claim at stake, and the fallout that followed from a dispute between litigation funder Innsworth and Mr Merricks as the class representative over the size of settlement.

The summary of the judgment released by the CAT detailed the division of the £200 million settlement, with the total amount “split into three pots”. 

Pot 1 represents half of the total settlement at £100 million and is ringfenced for class members, with Merricks enlisting the support of claims administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions for distribution to class members following a six month notice period. Depending on the volume of class members who come forward with a claim, the individual payout to class members will vary, with £45 per member if there is a 5% uptake. There is also a maximum cap of £70 per member “to prevent excessive individual recovery”.

The Pot 2 total of £45,567,946.28 has been ringfenced for litigation funder Innsworth to account to cover its costs and act as the basis for a minimum return for its investment. 

As the CAT’s judgment awarded Innsworth a 1.5 return on its investment, Pot 3 has a dual purpose. This remaining sum of £54,432,053.72 is set aside to fulfil the remaining profit return to Innsworth, and to supplement Pot 1 should more than 5% of class members submit claims. The judgment also requires any leftover amount in Pot 3 should be paid to “a consumer charity or the Access to Justice Foundation so that more than half of the Settlement Sum is distributed to the Class.” 

Whilst the judgment does not put an end to the arbitration that Innsworth has commenced against Mr Merricks over the settlement, it does approve an indemnity of £10 million that Mastercard has given to Mr Merricks as part of the settlement. The CAT stated this personal indemnity “did not impugn the Tribunal’s view of the settlement.”

The full judgment from the CAT in Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated and Others can be read here.