Longtime
readers
of
this
column
know
that
I
have
often
shared
insights
from
both
the
LF
Dealmakers
Forum
and
the
IP
Dealmakers
Forum.
For
the
former,
which
continues
as
a
flagship
event
in
the
litigation
finance
industry,
my
first
recap
was
written
all
the
way
back
in
2019.
Since
then,
I
have
attended
on
a
nearly
yearly
basis,
and
I
was
once
again
excited
to
get
a
press
pass
as
your
trusty
IP
columnist
to
attend
this
year’s
event,
held
last
week
in
Midtown
Manhattan.
The
location
was
new
to
me,
though
it
met
the
usual
high
Dealmakers
standard.
Still,
the
familiar
elements
that
make
this
event
a
staple
on
the
yearly
conference
calendar
were
firmly
in
place.
The
usual
mix
of
power
players
in
the
litigation
finance
space
were
in
attendance,
from
funders,
to
lawyers
of
all
stripes,
to
those
in
the
contingent
risk
insurance
industry.
In
truth,
it
was
a
little
humbling
to
see
how
many
of
the
people
at
the
event
were
folks
that
I
have
had
professional
interactions
with
over
the
years.
Some
of
those
connections,
of
course,
arose
out
of
prior
Dealmakers
events,
providing
a
heady
reminder
of
why
networking
is
a
professional
necessity,
especially
in
a
relationship-driven
industry
like
IP-focused
litigation
finance.
What
was
most
exciting
about
this
year’s
LF
Dealmakers
for
me,
however,
was
not
the
friendly
faces
and
informative
discussion
on
the
ins
and
outs
of
the
litigation
finance
industry
as
it
stands
today.
Each
was
welcome
—
and
a
reminder
of
why
Dealmakers
events
are
consistently
worthwhile
—
but
I
was
most
keen
to
focus
this
year
on
the
shared
morning
program
dedicated
to
policy
and
industry
advocacy.
Besides
providing
some
unique
perspectives,
such
as
from
a
sitting
congressman
with
real
prior
experience
as
a
litigator,
the
discussion
on
offer
was
both
timely
and
informative
in
light
of
the
existing
and
potential
impact
regulatory
activity
has
on
the
burgeoning
litigation
finance
industry.
In
fact,
for
my
three
takeaways
from
this
year’s
event,
I’d
like
to
focus
on
policy
issues
past,
present,
and
future,
particularly
as
they
relate
to
IP-related
litigation
finance.
(To
the
extent
I
reference
any
discussion
from
LF
Dealmakers
Forum,
I
will
abide
by
the
Chatham
House
rules
adopted
by
the
event
for
the
first
time
this
year.)
First,
there
is
no
dispute
that
the
past
few
years
have
seen
some
policy-related
decisions
that
have
had
a
significant
impact
on
litigation
finance
as
it
relates
to
patent
and
other
IP
litigation.
While
it
was
confirmed
at
this
year’s
event
that
IP
litigation
remains
a
key
area
of
focus
for
litigation
funders,
it
is
also
true
that
funder
behavior
has
been
influenced
by
both
implemented
and
proposed
regulation
in
the
past.
As
an
example
of
the
former,
the
increased
disclosure
burden
in
front
of
Chief
Judge
Connolly
in
Delaware
has
led
to
a
dramatic
drop
in
funded
patent
cases
filed
in
that
once-popular
district,
as
well
as
some
other
consequences
for
funded
patent
owners
that
I
have
covered
on
these
pages.
Likewise,
perhaps
the
defining
policy
moment
of
2025
for
the
litigation
finance
industry
—
and
maybe
ever
—
happened
right
before
the
summer,
when
a
proposed
piece
of
tax
legislation
threatened
to
doom
the
industry.
While
that
crisis
was
averted,
the
fresh
scars
from
that
abortive
legislative
clawing
at
funder
money
are
still
raw
for
many
in
the
industry.
Many
remember
the
panic,
stalled
deals,
and
feelings
of
powerlessness
that
seemed
to
collectively
seize
the
industry
until
the
parliamentarian
struck
the
amendment
from
what
passed
as
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Big
Act.
And
because
patent
cases
of
size
are
disproportionally
funded
cases,
the
potential
fallout
for
patent
litigants
and
their
counsel
was
immense
–
as
confirmed
by
the
temporary
disruption
that
even
discussion
of
a
punitive
litigation
finance
taxation
scheme
caused.
As
a
result
of
the
surprise
engendered
by
the
tax
proposal
aimed
at
the
industry,
LF
Dealmakers’
focus
on
avoiding
additional
policy
surprises
for
the
industry
was
well-taken
by
attendees.
For
our
second
takeaway
from
the
event,
we
can
drill
down
into
some
of
the
policy
actions
that
panelists
suggested
to
the
audience.
One
of
the
key
questions
from
the
audience
during
one
of
the
policy
panels
was
as
direct
as
it
gets,
namely,
what
could
industry
players
do
today
to
advance
the
policy
interests
of
the
litigation
finance
industry?
To
start,
the
importance
of
countering
the
“bogeyman”
narratives
around
litigation
finance
—
such
as
the
presence
of
shadowy
foreign
capital
and
funder
control
over
cases
—
by
industry
participants
was
highlighted.
More
than
just
reminding
folks
that
litigation
finance
unlocks
access
to
justice
for
deserving
litigants,
it
seems
clear
that
successful
counter-advocacy
will
require
beneficiaries
of
litigation
finance
to
tell
their
stories
publicly,
in
a
way
that
to
date
many
in
the
industry
have
been
reluctant
to
espouse.
Likewise,
building
relationships
with
politicians
from
the
ground
up,
even
at
the
state
level,
as
well
as
pooling
resources
via
industry
associations
will
be
critical
tasks
for
industry
participants
to
undertake.
Even
the
act
of
writing
about
litigation
finance
in
a
positive
light
has
promise,
if
only
to
counteract
the
negative
spin
on
the
industry
that
is
encountered
when
using
various
generative
AI
tools
to
educate
oneself
on
what
litigation
finance
is
all
about.
That’s
right,
we
have
to
help
balance
out
the
AI
by
training
it.
Welcome
to
2025.
Lastly,
for
our
third
takeaway,
we
can
take
a
quick
peek
into
the
future
of
litigation
finance
as
it
relates
to
IP
litigation.
For
one,
there
was
a
clear
expectation
by
those
in
the
know
that
further
legislative
action
around
litigation
finance,
at
both
the
state
and
federal
levels,
was
not
only
possible
but
likely.
Accordingly,
those
with
time-sensitive
patent
monetization
or
IP
claims
are
best
advised
to
push
their
projects
along
as
quickly
as
they
can,
at
least
to
the
extent
that
they
want
to
play
the
funding
game
according
to
the
current
rules.
Along
the
same
lines,
it
remains
as
critical
as
ever
to
stay
abreast
of
different
disclosure
rules
and
decisions
on
litigation
funding
disclosure
issues
adopted
by
trial
courts
as
they
relate
to
litigation
finance,
because
they
not
only
change
—
they
also
change
defendant
behavior
in
cases.
Ultimately,
while
the
future
of
litigation
finance
as
a
key
component
of
the
IP
litigation
ecosystem
seems
secure,
the
worthy
discussion
of
policy
at
the
LF
Dealmakers
Forum
reminds
us
of
the
critical
need
to
stay
vigilant,
knowledgeable
about
the
rules
of
the
game,
and
flexible
enough
to
adapt
to
policy
decisions
that
are
being
contemplated
or
implemented.
To
that
end,
the
team
at
LF
Dealmakers,
in
conjunction
with
Invenio,
have
released
“The
Litigation
Finance
Advocacy
Toolkit,”
“a
first-of-its-kind
resource
offering
practical
guidance
for
litigation
finance
professionals
seeking
to
influence
policy
and
public
perception.”
It
is
well
worth
the
read
and
hopefully
will
act
as
a
spur
for
further
action
by
those
interested
in
litigation
finance’s
mission
of
increasing
access
to
justice
for
meritorious
claims.
And
for
those
eager
to
deepen
their
involvement
and
sharpen
their
insights
with
even
more
of
an
IP
focus,
a
trip
to
Austin
in
early
November
for
the
upcoming
IP
Dealmakers
Forum
is
suggested
as
well.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.