GLS Capital Raises $345 million US for Litigation Fund

GLS Capital, based in Chicago, has raised $345 million US for a litigation fund, which will include intellectual property litigation.  It appears investor interest in IP litigation is high again.  Here is the press release: 

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GLS Capital, LLC today announced the completion of fundraising of its inaugural litigation finance fund, GLS Capital Partners Fund I, LP. Together with its affiliates, the Fund has investor commitments totaling more than $345 million.

GLS Capital raises $345 million for litigation finance fund. Trio of industry veterans launch fund to finance commercial and intellectual property litigation. . . .

The Fund’s diverse institutional investor base includes global financial institutions, endowments, foundations and family offices.

GLS invests in complex situations involving commercial litigation and arbitration, as well as intellectual property disputes in both the technology and pharmaceutical industries. The firm will structure creative and flexible solutions for businesses and law firms that are looking to better manage litigation and balance-sheet risks.

“We are excited to launch our first fund in a growing and dynamic asset class,” said David Spiegel, Managing Director of GLS. “Our fundraising significantly exceeded our initial target size, reflecting a high level of investor interest in our ability to be successful.”

Spiegel and his co-founders, Adam Gill and Jamison Lynch, stand out as an experienced and tested team in litigation finance. They previously executed and managed more than $400 million in investments at two of the world’s largest litigation finance providers.

Before entering litigation finance, they were litigators at elite international law firms. Lynch also served as the co-head of global patent litigation at a leading pharmaceutical company.

The firm intends to harness the deep experience of its founders to efficiently evaluate investment opportunities and streamline the underwriting process. The founders form GLS’ investment committee and have full investment authority.

About GLS Capital

Formed in 2018, GLS Capital is one of the world’s largest private investment firms focused on legal and regulatory risk. We provide bespoke financial solutions to meet the unique needs of each investment opportunity. For more information, please visit: www.glscap.com

Who are the “Good” “Trolls”? Or, How to Monetize Well?

This blog, in the past, has discussed the merits of so-called “patent trolls” or patent assertion entities (PAEs), here, here and here.  For sure, some PAEs or "trolls" provide a helpful service for firms, universities and some inventors without the wherewithal to enforce their patents.  And, defining exactly what is a “troll” may be a difficult task.  But, are all PAEs and “trolls” the same?  Are there good PAEs and “trolls”, and bad PAEs and “trolls”?  How do you tell the difference?  Joe Beyers and Wayne P. Sobon (both of Inventergy) recently published an article on Corporate Counsel titled, “Do’s and Don’ts of Corporate Patent Monetization.”  The article helpfully explains why patent owners should beware the bad “trolls” or PAEs and should partner with the good “trolls” or PAEs.  Why should they be concerned?  The authors wisely state that protection of the brand is paramount.  Association with a “bad” PAE or “troll” could reflect negatively upon the patent owner.  The authors provide a list of criteria for choosing a “licensing partner”.  Here are the “Don’ts”:

1. DON’T choose a licensor with a reputation for acquiring poor-quality patents and quickly suing.

2. DON’T select a licensor with a history of settling claims for a lot less than the cost of litigation (i.e., “nuisance fees”).

3. DON’T work with a licensor that sends widespread demand letters to multiple companies with little or no evidence that its patents are being infringed.

4. DON’T use a licensor that’s been the subject of any state actions or consent decrees, or has been forced to pay an opposing party’s attorneys’ fees.

5. DON’T partner with a licensor that operates behind hidden shell companies or otherwise has a reputation for abusive patent assertion behavior.

Here are the Do’s:

1. DO select a licensor that has made a public commitment to transparency and ethical business practices—and then speak with its licensees to confirm that this commitment is genuine in deed as well as word.

2. DO work with a licensor that seeks licenses only from appropriate companies (rather than startups or small retail businesses), and that comes to negotiations with substantive claim charts and other evidence of use.

3. DO choose a licensor that selects, owns and manages high-quality patent assets developed by global operating companies with reputations for innovation, like you.

4. DO use a licensor that takes active steps and commits material resources to ensure the quality of its patents, and vets them prior to licensing.

5. DO ensure that members of the licensor’s executive team have product or service company experience, and understand the needs and concerns of companies like yours regarding patent value creation.

This brings me to my next question.  Well readers, who are the “good” “PAEs” or “trolls”?  Please name them.  

I suppose maybe there are no “trolls”--just naughty behavior.