Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Inventor Leverages Litigation Funding to Beat Microsoft

One of the great benefits of third-party legal funding is the ability for small companies and even individuals to fight on a level playing field against the world’s largest corporations. This dynamic was made evident in a recent case, where a US inventor was able to achieve a $10 million award for patent infringement from Microsoft, after enlisting the support of a litigation funder.

Detailed in an article by Bloomberg Law, inventor Michael Kaufman has been in a decade-long struggle to receive compensation, after he alleged that Microsoft infringed his technology patent by using it in their Visual Studios Software. However, it wasn’t until he and attorney Ronald Abramson sought funding from Woodsford Litigation Funding that he was able to take Microsoft to court with previously inaccessible financial resources to fight the case.

Whilst Microsoft initially claimed it had not used the patented product to a significant degree in 2019, lawyers for Abramson discovered that this was only true for the previous year, and Microsoft had in fact been substantially using the product in prior years. After an appeal in federal court, the panel opinion stated that Kaufman should have received royalties from the product usage dating back to 2011.

Whilst victories in patent infringement cases for individual inventors is rare, Nicole Morris, a professor at Emory School of Law, highlighted that in situations where they can receive third-party funding, inventors are determined litigants due to their desire to see their own invention and work recognised.

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

CAT Rules in Favour of BT in Harbour-Funded Claim Valued at £1.3bn

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported yesterday, funders and law firms alike are looking to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as one of the most influential factors for the future of the UK litigation market in 2025 and beyond. A judgment released by the CAT yesterday that found in favour of Britain’s largest telecommunications business may provide a warning to industry leaders of the uncertainty around funding these high value collective proceedings.

An article in The Global Legal Post provides an overview of the judgment handed down by the CAT in Justin Le Patourel v BT Group PLC, as the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the telecoms company following the trial in March of this year. The opt-out claim valued at around £1.3 billion, was first brought before the Tribunal in 2021 and sought compensation for BT customers who had allegedly been overcharged for landline services from October 2015.

In the executive summary of the judgment, the CAT found “that just because a price is excessive does not mean that it was also unfair”, with the Tribunal concluding that “there was no abuse of dominant position” by BT.

The proceedings which were led by class representative Justin Le Patourel, founder of Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL), were financed with Harbour Litigation Funding. When the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) was granted in 2021, Harbour highlighted the claim as having originally been worth up to £600 million with the potential for customers to receive up to £500 if the case had been successful.

In a statement, Le Patourel said that he was “disappointed that it [the CAT] did not agree that these prices were unfair”, but said that they would now consider “whether the next step will be an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge this verdict”. The claimants have been represented by Mishcon de Reya in the case.

Commenting on the impact of the judgment, Tim West, disputes partner at Ashurst, said that it could have a “dampening effect, at least in the short term, on the availability of capital to fund the more novel or unusual claims in the CAT moving forward”. Similarly, Mohsin Patel, director and co-founder of Factor Risk Management, described the outcome as “a bitter pill to swallow” for both the claimants and for the law firm and funder who backed the case.

The CAT’s full judgment and executive summary can be accessed on the Tribunal’s website.

Announcements Case Developments Commercial

Australian Google Ad Tech Class Action Commenced on Behalf of Publishers

By Harry Moran |

A class action was filed on 16 December 2024 on behalf of QNews Pty Ltd and Sydney Times Media Pty Ltd against Google LLC, Google Pte Ltd and Google Australia Pty Ltd (Google). 

The class action has been commenced to recover compensation for Australian-domiciled website and app publishers who have suffered financial losses as a result of Google’s misuse of market power in the advertising technology sector. The alleged loss is that publishers would have had significantly higher revenues from selling advertising space, and would have kept greater profits, if not for Google’s misuse of market power. 

The class action is being prosecuted by Piper Alderman with funding from Woodsford, which means affected publishers will not pay costs to participate in this class action, nor will they have any financial risk in relation to Google’s costs. 

Anyone, or any business, who has owned a website or app and sold advertising space using Google’s ad tech tools can join the action as a group member by registering their details at www.googleadtechaction.com.au. Participation in the action as a group member will be confidential so Google will not become aware of the identity of group members. 

The class action is on behalf of all publishers who had websites or apps and sold advertising space using Google’s platforms targeted at Australian consumers, including: 

  1. Google Ad Manager (GAM);
  2. Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP);
  3. Google Ad Exchange (AdX); and
  4. Google AdSense or AdMob. 

for the period 16 December 2018 to 16 December 2024. 

Google’s conduct 

Google’s conduct in the ad tech market is under scrutiny in various jurisdictions around the world. In June 2021, the French competition authority concluded that Google had abused its dominant position in the ad tech market. Google did not contest the decision, accepted a fine of €220m and agreed to change its conduct. The UK Competition and Markets Authority, the European Commission, the US Department of Justice and the Canadian Competition Bureau have also commenced investigations into, or legal proceedings regarding, Google’s conduct in ad tech. There are also class actions being prosecuted against Google for its practices in the ad tech market in the UK, EU and Canada. 

In Australia, Google’s substantial market power and conduct has been the subject of regulatory investigation and scrutiny by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which released its report in August 2021. The ACCC found that “Google is the largest supplier of ad tech services across the entire ad tech supply chain: no other provider has the scale or reach across the ad tech supply chain that Google does.” It concluded that “Google’s vertical integration and dominance across the ad tech supply chain, and in related services, have allowed it to engage in leveraging and self-preferencing conduct, which has likely interfered with the competitive process". 

Quotes 

Greg Whyte, a partner at Piper Alderman, said: 

“This class action is of major importance to publishers, who have suffered as a result of Google’s practices in the ad tech monopoly that it has secured. As is the case in several other 2. jurisdictions around the world, Google will be required to respond to and defend its monopolistic practices which significantly affect competition in the Australian publishing market”. 

Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer at Woodsford said: “This class action follows numerous other class actions against Google in other jurisdictions regarding its infringement of competition laws in relation to AdTech. This action aims to hold Google to account for its misuse of market power and compensate website and app publishers for the consequences of Google’s misconduct. Working closely with economists, we have determined that Australian website and app publishers have been earning significantly less revenue and profits from advertising than they should have. We aim to right this wrong.” 

Class Action representation 

The team prosecuting the ad tech class action comprises: 

  • Law firm: Piper Alderman
  • Funder: Woodsford
  • Counsel team: Nicholas de Young KC, Simon Snow and Nicholas Walter
Case Developments Commercial

Burford Capital Funds Competition Claim Against Google

By Harry Moran |

Law firm Geradin Partners has revealed that, alongside Dr Or Brook, they will be filing an opt-out competition damages claim against Google in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim, which is being brought on behalf of UK-domiciled advertisers, focuses on allegations that Google abused the market dominance of its search engine services and engaged in anticompetitive behaviour to charge unreasonably high prices for these advertisers.

Geradin Partners said that the claim is estimated to be valued at over £5 billion, with the action being supported by litigation funding from Burford Capital. Alongside Geradin Partners, Dr Brook has engaged a legal team including: Robert O’Donoghue KC (Brick Court), Kieron Beal KC (Blackstone Chambers), and Daniel Carrall-Green (Fountain Court). The announcement did not specify a date, but said that the claim would be filed in the CAT “shortly”.

Dr Brook explained the reasoning behind bringing the action, saying: “Google has adopted a deliberate strategy to maintain its dominance in online search through a range of anticompetitive behaviours aimed at excluding its rivals, to the severe detriment of advertisers. I am bringing this litigation to ensure that advertisers in the UK are given the opportunity to be compensated for the harm they have suffered at Google’s hands as a result of these unfair practices.”

Damien Geradin, Founding Partner of Geradin Partners, provided the following statement: “Google has eliminated rivals on the general search services and general search text advertising markets through a variety of exclusionary practices, which has led UK-domiciled advertisers to be overcharged by billions of pounds. We are committed and well-resourced to obtain redress on their behalf.”