Trending Now
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.’

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Chariot Claims Raises $10M Series A to Scale Mass Consumer Arbitration Claims

Chariot Claims has closed a $10 million Series A round to expand a platform that sources and pre-qualifies consumer claims for mass arbitration, bringing total funding to $15.7 million.

As reported by LawNext, the round was led by Silverton Partners, with general partner Mike Dodd participating, alongside Indicator Ventures, Lightbank, Neon Fund, ZVC, Rosecliff, Alumni Ventures, FJ Labs, Graph Ventures and Vermilion. The company previously raised a $3.6 million seed round led by Indicator Ventures in April 2025.

Founded in 2023 as ClaimClam and rebranded in 2025, the company is led by chief executive Zim Hang. It generates more than 200,000 pre-qualified claims a month across roughly 80 active corporate cases. Chariot Claims is not a law firm.

The business is built on a participation gap. Only about 4% of harmed consumers file claims, and the company reports that its users recover an average of roughly $460, compared with the $32 average identified in a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau analysis of class action distributions.

Proceeds will fund investment in artificial intelligence and expansion into children's data privacy, financial privacy and healthcare privacy claims, as well as defences against corporate retaliation. The company has more than doubled its headcount.

The raise reflects continued investor appetite for claim aggregation infrastructure, which sits adjacent to litigation finance and increasingly competes with it for the same consumer-facing claim volume.

Commercial

Rugby Concussion Litigation Survives Collapse After Funder Covers £1.5m Costs Order

The long-running rugby concussion group litigation has been pulled back from collapse after an eleventh-hour £1.5m payment satisfied a court-ordered costs liability owed to World Rugby and the Rugby Football Union.

As reported by Yahoo Sports, commercial litigation funder Asertis remained in place after the claimants changed law firms, meaning the costs order could be met. Had the payment not been made, the claims of roughly 1,000 former players would have been at risk.

The payment follows a reprieve granted in August, when Senior Master Jeremy Cook handed down a 13,500-word judgment granting relief from sanction in principle after Richard Boardman's Rylands Garth was replaced by KP Law. The claims of Phil Vickery and Steve Thompson had previously been ruled strike-out-worthy. Defendants had sought more than £2.8m in total, with Rugby Union costs assessed at £2.5m across World Rugby, the RFU and the WRU, and 60% ordered on an interim basis.

The litigation is not out of danger. Some 377 claimants still face automatic dismissal unless medical records are provided by the end of the month.

The episode is a clear illustration of a funder's role beyond case capital. Where a claimant group incurs an adverse costs order mid-proceeding, the funder's willingness to stand behind it determines whether the litigation continues at all. Asertis's decision to remain committed through a change of solicitor preserved a case begun in 2022.

Commercial

UFC Fighters Resist Discovery Into Who Is Funding Their Wage-Fixing Case

Mixed martial arts fighters suing the UFC over alleged wage suppression are pushing back against the organisation's effort to obtain information about the litigation funding behind their case, characterising the request as a distraction from the merits of the antitrust claims.

As reported by Law360, the fighters' opposition follows the UFC's move earlier this month to press a Nevada federal judge to pull back the curtain on who is financing the proceedings. The dispute arises in Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC et al, No. 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The October 15 report was written by Alex Lawson.

The case was filed in June 2021 by Kajan Johnson and C.B. Dollaway against Zuffa and Endeavor Group Holdings, and covers fighters competing from 2017 onward. It is the successor to Le v. Zuffa, which settled for $375 million covering bouts between December 2010 and June 2017 and received final approval from Judge Richard F. Boulware in February 2025 without any accompanying changes to the UFC's business practices.

Funding discovery has become a standard defence tactic in large antitrust and class proceedings, and the fighters' objection tracks arguments made by claimants elsewhere: that the identity of a funder is irrelevant to liability. The case has already generated other discovery friction, including a sanctions motion in February over alleged evidence destruction.