search icon Hamburger icon Times icon Caret Down icon Quote Left icon Facebook icon Linkedin icon Linkedin icon box twitter icon Google plus icon Youtube icon Angle Left Icon Angle Right Icon Download Icon Hubspot Icon Align Justify Icon Angle Down Icon home Icon check Icon check Icon

Telecoms Patent Assertion – Multi-Jurisdictional Campaigns en

SHARE

A client with patents in the mobile phone technology space approached Deminor to fund aspects of its ongoing multi-jurisdictional campaign due to Deminor’s litigation funding experience in certain markets. Cases in certain jurisdictions were already financed by other litigation funders or were being litigated by law firms working on contingency. The client was a small start-up with limited internal resources.

Process & Approach

In this case, the client had already been through the due diligence process in respect of enforcement in other jurisdictions and so Deminor was able to initially focus on structural issues including coordination of the multi-jurisdictional campaign and the differences between the patents under review to those already involved in funded litigation.

Telecoms

Summary

In this case, the timing of the litigation funding request to Deminor and the fact that other aspects of the litigation were already moving forward in different jurisdictions meant that there was a real risk of decisions in those jurisdictions impacting the case that Deminor reviewed to fund. A core part of the due diligence was to focus on how the cases were coordinated and how the client would resolve conflicting advice if the situation arose. It is key for Deminor to understand which firm is the coordinating firm and the mechanisms that have been put in place to ensure alignment between the different jurisdictions.

Emily’s Comment

"This was a strong technical case but without clarity regarding coordination between the law firms and the case strategies in the different jurisdictions, the risk of inconsistent statements being made in those forums against different levels of Defendant in the supply chain meant that the case was higher risk."

 

Further reading

Newsletter