Earlier this month, District of Delaware Judge Gregory B. Williams denied a motion from BMW to intervene in a case filed by Arigna Technology Limited, a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, against Longford Capital Fund III, LP (“LCF”), an entity controlled by Chicago-based litigation finance firm Longford Capital. The court did so without prejudice, pointing to its decision the day before to stay the case to allow an arbitrator to decide whether Arigna’s claims against Longford should be subjected to arbitration. Meanwhile, District of DC Judge Rudolph Contreras has granted Susman Godfrey L.L.P.’s motion to withdraw from its representation of Arigna in a declaratory judgment action filed by BMW against it there.

Briefing is now complete on a motion to intervene brought by BMW in the District of Delaware case that Arigna Technology Limited, a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, filed against Longford Capital Fund III, LP (“LCF”), an entity controlled by Chicago-based litigation finance firm Longford Capital, this past December. Arigna and Longford dispute the extent to which the latter is owed proceeds from a “global settlement” with an unnamed defendant sued across litigation run by multiple Atlantic IP-tied plaintiffs, not just Arigna. BMW has jumped in based on allegations that a “German court will be expected to award BMW from Arigna . . . between $380,000 and $1.1 million” in costs and fees there and that “Arigna has demonstrated an ability and willingness to reduce its capital abroad to insulate itself from paying fees to BMW in Germany”. BMW further argues that its involvement in this case is necessary because it is “the only party interested in shedding light on the possible violation of Irish champerty litigation financing laws” here.

Longford Capital Fund III, LP has moved to compel arbitration of the disputes raised in the District of Delaware complaint filed by Arigna Technology Limited this past December. The redacted version of Longford’s opening brief characterizes the “two-contract structure” of the funding arrangement between Arigna (a plaintiff operating under the umbrella of Dublin-based monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited), Longford (controlled by Longford Capital, a litigation finance firm based in Chicago, Illinois), and Susman Godfrey, LLP (litigation counsel for Arigna) as suggested by Arigna “for the stated purpose of best addressing the tax laws of Ireland”. Arigna and other Atlantic IP plaintiffs completed a “global settlement” with an unnamed defendant. Longford contends that Arigna violated that “two-contract structure” by failing to move all related “Proceeds”—including those received in connection with settlements with Arigna “Affiliates”—into a required escrow account controlled by Arigna, Longford, and Susman and by failing to submit any disputes to arbitration.

Arigna Technology Limited, one of more than a dozen plaintiffs associated with Dublin-based patent monetization firm Atlantic IP Services Limited, has filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against litigation finance firm Longford Capital. Surprisingly, a complete and unredacted copy of a funding agreement between Longford and Arigna’s litigation counsel, Susman Godfrey, LLP, was included as an exhibit to Arigna’s December 18 complaint (which has since been sealed), providing a look at the budget for an expansive patent litigation effort that has targeted automotive makers as well as mobile device makers across multiple venues in the US and Germany.

In a Northern District of California complaint, InfoExpress, Inc. has accused Cisco (3:23-cv-02698) of infringing six patents, generally related to controlling network access, through the provision of “hardware and software (including licenses)”, including Cisco’s Identity Services Engine (ISE), as access points, Secure Network Servers (SNS), and routers that implement the ISE. The plaintiff has certified that no nonparties have an interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the litigation, even though other public filings suggest that InfoExpress entered into a “Funding Agreement” with a prominent provider of litigation finance this past February.

Multiple litigation finance players announced large fundraises during the third quarter, signaling a continued interest in the asset class by institutional investors. Also during Q3, several NPEs began new campaigns financed by third parties, including an established litigation finance firm as well as a hedge fund.