Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

Navigating Patent Litigation: The Crucial Role of Generative AI Platforms

January 2, 2024

Navigating Patent Litigation: The Crucial Role of Generative AI Platforms

In a landmark decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), Apple’s highest-grossing wearables faced unprecedented importation restrictions, marking a pivotal moment in the protracted patent dispute with medical device-maker Masimo. To put the magnitude into perspective, Apple’s wearables, home, and accessory business raked in a staggering $8.28 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2023. This ruling disrupts the very core of Apple’s most popular and revenue-generating wearables, adding a seismic impact to the already intense legal battle with Masimo. This article delves into the transformative capabilities of Generative AI platforms, shedding light on how these technologies are reshaping both proactive and reactive litigation practices against the backdrop of such a significant industry development. Elevating Efficiency in Patent Litigation: A Generative AI Perspective Strategic Edge for Law Firms and Litigators:
  1. Streamlined Data Management:
    • Generative AI platforms streamline the upload and organization of voluminous case documents, enhancing law firms’ and litigators’ capability to manage data efficiently.
  2. Automated Analysis:
    • Leveraging Generative AI, legal professionals can automate analysis processes, extracting valuable insights from complex datasets swiftly and accurately.
  3. Dynamic Adaptability:
    • Future-ready Generative AI platforms empower law firms and litigators to dynamically adapt to new information or shifting circumstances, providing a real-time strategic advantage.
  4. Investor Collaboration:
    • Building and maintaining a comprehensive roster of investors becomes more manageable, facilitating efficient collaboration and attracting funding partners for legal fees.
  5. Tailored Content Creation:
    • Generative AI platforms excel in generating tailored content for legal motions, analyzing writing styles and logic to ensure persuasive arguments that resonate effectively.
  6. Communication Excellence:
    • Acting as central communication hubs, these platforms foster seamless collaboration and information exchange among legal professionals, enhancing overall communication efficiency.
Empowering Patent Owners in Proactive Management:
  1. Organized Patent Portfolio:
    • Generative AI facilitates the creation of well-organized rosters of patents, providing patent owners with strategic control over their portfolios.
  2. Capital Attraction:
    • Patent owners can leverage organized patent portfolios to attract funding for growth and innovation independently, reducing reliance on traditional fundraising approaches.
  3. Self-Funded Litigation:
    • Generative AI platforms empower patent owners to gain better economic control, enabling them to self-fund litigation cases when required.
  4. Global Coverage:
    • Future-ready platforms offer a comprehensive overview of patents, covering multiple regions and facilitating global enforcement.
  5. Quality Assurance:
    • While maintaining human-in-the-loop functionality, Generative AI ensures robust quality checks and efficient data management.
Masimo vs. Apple: A Glimpse into the Future of Patent Litigation The recent ITC ruling in Masimo vs. Apple serves as a poignant reminder to businesses about the critical importance of being in the driver’s seat when it comes to managing their own patents and capitalizing on innovation. While Masimo, a sizable player in the industry, successfully navigated the legal terrain to secure favorable outcomes, it prompts reflection on how smaller companies might face more significant challenges in achieving similar results. This underscores the significance of businesses taking control of their intellectual property and innovation strategies. For smaller companies, such as those without the resources of a Masimo, being in the driver’s seat is not just a strategic choice but a necessity. The Masimo vs. Apple case illuminates the power dynamic in patent disputes and the role that control over one’s intellectual property plays in shaping the outcomes. Smaller entities, with limited resources, may find themselves at a disadvantage in legal battles, making it imperative for them to proactively manage their patents, navigate legal landscapes, and capitalize on their innovations. Generative AI platforms emerge as a leveling force in this scenario. By harnessing the power of generative solutions, smaller law firms gain a more competitive edge without the need for extensive headcount. This democratization of legal capabilities levels the playing field, allowing smaller firms to stand shoulder to shoulder with their larger counterparts. The transformative potential of generative AI platforms extends beyond just litigation; it opens up avenues for smaller entities to actively participate in the competitive capital market. In essence, a more equitable competitive capital market is crucial for fostering innovation. Generative AI platforms become the key to sustaining this trend. They empower businesses, regardless of size, to actively shape their legal strategies, manage patents efficiently, and capitalize on their innovative potential. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, embracing generative AI not only ensures a fairer competitive environment but also fosters a culture of innovation where businesses of all sizes can thrive.  As the patent community adapts to the demands of complex patent disputes, Generative AI platforms emerge as indispensable tools, revolutionizing both proactive and reactive litigation practices. This nuanced approach empowers law firms, litigators, and patent owners alike, offering a glimpse into the future of patent litigation where efficiency, data-driven strategies, and collaboration take center stage amidst the landmark shifts brought on by significant industry developments. About the author: Joshua Masia, Co-founder & CEO of DealBridge.ai, brings a wealth of experience from leadership roles at JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock, and iCapital. With a BS in Electrical Engineering, Josh has spent 15 years shaping technical and business solutions. At DealBridge.ai, Josh leads the charge in transforming private markets. Their platform, powered by Generative AI, automates deal complexities, streamlining origination, due diligence, and distribution. Eliminating traditional processes, DealBridge.ai empowers seamless connections, enhancing the human experience in deal-making. Under Josh’s vision, DealBridge.ai maximizes revenue potential through automation, redefining legal, insurance, and financial transactions. As a trailblazer, Josh and DealBridge.ai usher in a transformative era in deal relationship management.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bloomberg Law Cites Legal Funding Journal Podcast in Commentary on Funder Transparency

By John Freund |

A recent episode of the Legal Funding Journal podcast was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article on funder control of cases. In the episode, Stuart Hills and Guy Nielson, Co-Founders of RiverFleet, discussed the thorny topic this way: “What do funders care about? They certainly do care about settlements and that should be recognized. They do care about who is the legal counsel and that should be recognized. They care about the way the case is being run. They care about discontinuing the legal action and they care about wider matters affecting the funder.”

The provocative new commentary from Bloomberg Law reignites the longstanding debate over transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), asserting that many funders exercise considerable control over litigation outcomes—despite public disavowals to the contrary.

In the article, Alex Dahl of Lawyers for Civil Justice argues that recent contract analyses expose mechanisms by which funders can shape or even override key litigation decisions, including settlement approval, counsel selection, and pursuit of injunctive relief. The piece singles out Burford Capital, the sector’s largest player, highlighting its 2022 bid to block a client’s settlement in the high-profile Sysco antitrust matter, even as it publicly claimed to be a passive investor. Such contradictions, Dahl contends, underscore a pressing need for mandatory disclosure of litigation funding arrangements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The analysis points to contracts that allegedly allow funders to halt cash flow mid-litigation, demand access to all documents—including sensitive or protected materials—and require plaintiffs to pay sanctions regardless of who caused the misconduct. Courts and opposing parties are typically blind to these provisions, as the agreements are often shielded from disclosure.

While funders like Burford maintain that control provisions are invoked only in “extraordinary circumstances,” Dahl’s article ends with a call for judicial mandates requiring transparency, likening funder involvement to insurers, who must disclose coverage under current civil rules.

For legal funders, the takeaway is clear: scrutiny is intensifying. As the industry matures and high-profile disputes mount, the push for standardized disclosure rules may accelerate. The central question ahead—how to balance transparency with funder confidentiality—remains a defining challenge for the sector.

Case Developments Commercial

Siltstone vs. Walia Dispute Moves to Arbitration

By John Freund |

Siltstone Capital and its former general counsel, Manmeet (“Mani”) Walia, have agreed to resolve their dispute via arbitration rather than through the Texas state court system—a move that transforms a high‑stakes conflict over trade secrets, opportunity diversion, and fund flow into a more opaque, confidential proceeding.

An article in Law360 notes that Siltstone had accused Walia of misusing proprietary information, diverting deal opportunities to his new venture, and broadly leveraging confidential data to compete unfairly. Walia, in turn, has denied wrongdoing and contended that Siltstone had consented—or even encouraged—his departure and new venture, pointing to a release executed upon his exit and a waiver of non‑compete obligations.

The agreement to arbitrate was reported on October 7, 2025. From a governance lens, this shift signals a preference for dispute resolution that may better preserve business continuity during fundraising cycles, especially in sectors like litigation finance where timing, investor confidence, and deal pipelines are critical.

However, arbitration also concentrates pressure into narrower scopes: document production, expert analyses (especially of trade secret scope, lost opportunity causation, and valuation), and the arbitrators’ evaluation. One point to watch is whether interim relief—protecting data, limiting competitive conduct, or preserving the status quo—will emerge in the arbitration or via court‑ordered relief prior to final proceedings.

Case Developments Commercial

ASB Agrees to NZ$135.6M Settlement in Banking Class Action

By John Freund |

ASB has confirmed it will pay NZ$135,625,000 to resolve the Banking Class Action focused on alleged disclosure breaches under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), subject to approval by the High Court. The settlement was announced October 7, 2025, but ASB did not admit liability as part of the deal.

1News reports that the class action—covering both ASB and ANZ customers—alleges that the banks failed to provide proper disclosure to borrowers during loan variations. As a result, during periods of non‑compliance, customers claim the banks were not entitled to collect interest and fees (under CCCFA sections 22, 99, and 48).

The litigation has been jointly funded by CASL (Australia) and LPF Group (New Zealand). The parallel claim against ANZ remains active and is not part of ASB’s settlement.

Prior to this announcement, plaintiffs had publicly floated a more ambitious settlement in the NZ$300m+ range, which both ASB and ANZ had rejected—labeling it a “stunt” or political gambit tied to ongoing legislative changes to CCCFA.

Legal and regulatory observers see this deal as a strategic move by ASB: it caps its exposure and limits litigation risk without conceding wrongdoing, while leaving open the possibility of continued proceedings against ANZ. The arrangement still requires High Court consent before going ahead.