Parties in Burford-Funded Argentina Claim Remain Far Apart on Payout Amount 

Alexander Wolfson, a highly experienced barrister of more than 25 years standing, has issued an opt-out class action claim against software giant Microsoft. He is issuing the claim on behalf of all UK-domiciled natural and legal persons (including public bodies) that purchased licences for certain specified Microsoft software products (including Microsoft Office and Windows). 

The claims allege that the software giant abused its market dominance and engaged in conduct that restricted competition to its new licences from pre-owned licences for Microsoft products. That conduct affected and inflated the prices of both new licences and pre-owned licences. 

The claim is one of the most significant class action cases currently underway in the UK, with a potential value reaching into the billions. 

Wolfson has retained the services of the Head of Competition at Stewarts, Kate Pollock, alongside partners Stuart Carson and Marc Jones (and others), and is instructing Counsel teams at both Monckton and Matrix Chambers, together with a team of experts to provide testimony on the economics of the case. The claim is funded by Harbour. 

Alex Wolfson, Proposed Class Representative, said: “Microsoft’s actions have had a significant and far-reaching impact on UK consumers, businesses and public bodies. This claim seeks to hold Microsoft to account and to secure compensation for the many affected members of the class. With billions of pounds potentially at stake, this case is about ensuring fairness in the digital marketplace and ensuring even the largest tech companies play by the rules.”

Kate Pollock, Head of Competition Litigation at Stewarts, said: “Microsoft’s conduct has had a profound and costly impact on millions of individuals and private and public sector organisations that rely on its software for daily business operations. We believe that Microsoft abused its market dominance by imposing restrictive licensing practices that effectively shut down competition and inflated prices. We’re proud to be supporting Alexander Wolfson in bringing this claim. With our specialist experience in complex competition litigation, we are well placed to help secure justice for the millions affected. This case has the potential to restore greater fairness and accountability to the UK’s increasingly digital economy.” 

Ellora MacPherson, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer at Harbour, which is funding the case, said: “We are delighted to be able to support Alex Wolfson, Kate Pollock and the rest of the Stewarts team by funding this important case which will give access to justice to tens of thousands of individuals and public and private organisations in the UK. This action is likely to be one of the largest the UK has seen and is an example of how big corporate entities can be held to account.” 

For more information about the case, visit MicrosoftClaim.com

A patent infringement case being brought against one of the world’s largest streaming companies would on its face be considered a significant matter. However, this case may have added implications for the world of litigation funding, as a judge has indicated that sanctions may be imposed on an attorney who shared sensitive information with the case’s funder.  

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers new insights into an ongoing patent lawsuit being brought against Netflix, as a federal judge looks set to impose sanctions on the plaintiff’s attorney for sharing the streaming service’s source code and company financial information with a litigation funder. The development came during a hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, following Netflix’s complaint that attorney Bill Ramey shared information disclosure during discovery with AiPi LLC.

AiPi is the party that has funded the patent infringement case brought by Lauri Valjakka, a Finnish inventor who sued Netflix in 2022. AiPI Solutions’ website lists ‘IP Litigation Finance’ as one of the core services it offers to clients, which include corporate patent holders, law firms seeking alternative financing arrangements, and investors looking to invest in lawsuits.

Netflix’s complaint stems from allegations that Ramey shared information that was designated “attorneys eyes only” with AiPi, and that this information had been shared before Netflix had been informed of the funder’s involvement in the lawsuit. Sarah Piepmeier, an attorney at Perkins Coie representing Netflix, argued that having access to this sensitive company data “could influence their decisions to underwrite new cases or that could inspire them to bring new cases.”

Whilst Ramey tried to argue that the case’s protective order allowed for information to be shared with affiliates, and that the four lawyers at AiPi he had shared the information with fell under this designation, Judge Jon S. Tigar strongly disagreed with Ramey’s suggestion that this “is a situation of no harm”. Judge Tigar not only suggested that substantial “attorneys’ fees as a sanction are going to be appropriate”, he also said he was considering ordering Ramey to hand over any communications with the four individuals at AiPi. Furthermore, the judge indicated that he would be considering referring Ramey to a disciplinary body such as the California State Bar.