"If a client has a good case there is a good chance that client can offset anywhere from 50-100% of the cost risk, typically at no upfront cost and at no cost if the case loses. Once that's the accepted principle an exploration of what is potentially available for that particular client can be made, taking into account the client's financial position and their appetite to take risk".I'd very much like to receive comments from readers who have direct experience of ATE or TPF -- and I'd also like to know what happens when, in terms of risk assessment, the dispute coming up for litigation is a real 50-50% call. Do let me know, by posting a comment below or emailing me here.
"Where money issues meet IP rights". This weblog looks at financial issues for intellectual property rights: securitisation and collateral, IP valuation for acquisition and balance sheet purposes, tax and R&D breaks, film and product finance, calculating quantum of damages--anything that happens where IP meets money.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Funding patent litigation -- do ATE and TPF really work?
The November 2008 issue of Patent World, published ten times a year by Informa, features a piece entitled "Keeping Costs Low: how to hedge the risk of expensive litigation" by James Delany. James is a director of specialist brokers TheJudge, described in the journal as the largest independent litigation risk transfer broker in the UK. After reviewing the concepts of after-the-event insurance (now usually referred to as "ATE") and third party funding ("TPF") his article concludes:
Post a Comment