Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
Commercial

Litigation Funding in Brazil Could Explode After 231,000 Patents Are Granted to Reduce Backlog

January 15, 2018

Litigation Funding in Brazil Could Explode After 231,000 Patents Are Granted to Reduce Backlog

For the past 15 years, Brazil has suffered one of the world’s most chronic and severe backlogs of pending patents. Now, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), is looking to reduce that backlog in one fell swoop: by granting patent rights until 2020 to 231,000 pending applications with no examination. The Brazilian government is seeking to introduce this emergency measure as an “extraordinary solution” to the crisis that has plagued the nation’s patent market for a generation. Brazil’s patent problems arose after it enacted the Patent Statute in 1996, making the nation TRIPS compliant and expanding its range of patentable products and industries. As a result, the number of patent filings has increased 200% over the last 15 years, without a corresponding increase in PTO examiners. Brazil’s current average waiting time for all technological patents is over 10 years. For pharmaceutical and telecom patents, the average wait time is over 13 years. According to the PTO, the current number of examiners (326) is sufficient to handle the present influx of new filings, however it is the backlog that is keeping the PTO in check. Therefore, the PTO has floated the idea that 231,000 pending patents within the backlog (not including pharma patents, which are covered by a separate regulatory body) be immediately granted with no examination required. Here’s where things get tricky, however: a third party would maintain the right to file a pre-grant opposition within 90 days of the automatic patent filing. Should a pre-grant filing take place, the patent application would automatically be reviewed by the PTO. Companies could then theoretically check the automatic patent application list for competitor patents, and file a pre-grant opposition in order to remove their competitors’ patents from the queue. Of course, that type of action would require an upfront legal spend. Perhaps this is an area that astute litigation funders in the market could pursue– There is additional concern, of course, that patents granted via the automatic waiver may in the long run be vulnerable to invalidity challenges in post-grant opposition, as well as the Federal Courts. Local and state judges may also be reluctant to enforce patent decisions in cases involving patents obtained through automatic application. The PTO itself is not beyond judicial reproach; there have already been numerous lawsuits against the PTO grounded on the unlawfulness of the lengthy backlog, which have successfully compelled the PTO to examine a patent application by means of a court order. So it’s not a given that the PTO’s automatic grant will be accepted by state and even federal courts. Again, these are all nitty-gritty details that could play out in the litigation finance industry’s favor, should the PTO move ahead with its suggested ‘extraordinary solution.’
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.