Since late last year, RPX has flagged three batches of security agreements—each batch covering six different patent portfolios—all apparently involving the same third-party funder. Of the 18 funded patent portfolios, all but one has spawned new litigation campaigns, four having started last month. Meanwhile, public records provide hints as to the possible identity of the funder here—helpful hints, since the plaintiffs litigating in the Northern District of California or the District of New Jersey have apparently skirted, so far, respective disclosure requirements in those venues.

This past September, records made public by the USPTO revealed another batch of security interests in the patent portfolios separately held by six entities. Similar sets of security interests popped up last April, as well as late in 2021. After last week, of those 18 portfolios, 16 have now spawned litigation, over different subject matter, by various types of plaintiffs, all with ties back to the same apparent funder.

The litigation finance space saw fireworks in Q2, with Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware posting a pair of standing orders that heighten disclosure requirements in the second most popular district for patent litigation in the US—at least for cases assigned to Judge Connolly. While patent plaintiffs litigating in that courtroom are taking varied approaches to navigating (or, in some cases, avoiding) this evolving territory, RPX data and research indicate that the rate at which new third-party funded NPE campaigns are being initiated held steady in Q2.

Throughout late 2021, RPX reported new litigation initiated by an apparently unrelated group of plaintiffs that had granted security interests in their portfolios to the same funder. Now, a second batch of security agreements, involving a different set of six patent holders, has been recorded with the USPTO—suggesting that a new wave of financed campaigns is coming. In fact, one of those campaigns began this week.