In patent litigation, the right funding partner should bring more than capital — it should bring judgement, flexibility and a constructive relationship that supports the case over the long term.

Patent disputes can be attractive funding opportunities, but only where the merits, damages and enforcement path support a realistic route to recovery. This blog explains how Erso Capital assesses patent claims through the lens of recoverable value, and why strong patents, credible damages and disciplined strategy matter more than headline numbers.

The economics of US patent enforcement are shifting, with fewer assumptions to be made about PTAB institution, district court stays and the familiar delay tactics once available to defendants. For patent owners and law firms, that makes the funding question sharper: is the case merely arguable, or has it been structured to turn procedural momentum into recoverable value?

The Unified Patent Court is no longer an experiment — it is reshaping the economics of European patent enforcement. For claimants, law firms and funders, the real question is whether the UPC’s speed, reach and jurisdictional complexity can be turned into recoverable value.

If a funded claimant succeeds, should the losing party ever pay the cost of that funding? Following the SICC’s 2 June 2026 decision in DTH v DTF, the answer in Singapore appears, for now, to be highly constrained — but the policy debate over necessity, reasonableness and tribunal discretion is far from over.

A wave of new disclosure legislation is reshaping the U.S. litigation funding landscape. As transparency requirements expand across states, federal courts, and agencies, what does this mean for funders and the continued evolution of the market?

Litigation budgets are not simply forecasts of expected spend. They are stress tests that reveal how a case may develop when assumptions change, costs escalate, or opponents litigate more aggressively than anticipated. In this month's Investment Counsel Corner, Bob Knock explains why the strongest funding applications are not built on optimism, but on careful judgment, transparent contingencies and realistic scenario planning.

Germany’s highest court has delivered one of the most significant rulings to date on funded mass claims and the implications for litigation funders could be substantial. In our latest piece, we look at what the BGH truck cartel ruling actually says, where the uncertainty now lies, and why underwriting discipline and claim structure are likely to come under far greater scrutiny going forward.

The UK government has confirmed it still intends to legislate following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, but the absence of any litigation funding bill from the King’s Speech raises fresh questions about timing and market certainty. In our latest piece, we look at what the omission means for funders, why PACCAR continues to shape agreement structures, and where the UK market now stands.

Litigation finance is facing a difficult period, with write-downs, distressed portfolio sales and growing scrutiny of the asset class prompting renewed debate about the industry's future. In our latest piece, we look at what the current market stress actually tells us about litigation funding, why risk and volatility are inherent to the model, and whether this period may ultimately produce a more disciplined market.

A recent UK Supreme Court Decision marks an incremental, but important step in strengthening the enforceability of ICSID awards by narrowing one of the former procedural routes used to resist enforcement.

California’s proposed A.B. 2305, aimed at insulating litigation from third-party influence, addresses a fundamental principle of our legal system: litigation must be directed by clients and their counsel. But is it necessary, or do reputable, professional funders already follow this standard?

As collective proceedings continue to gain traction in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the approach to adverse costs—and how actively parties manage that risk—is coming into sharper focus. A recent costs judgment offers a timely reminder that costs exposure in these claims is not just about headline numbers, but about conduct, strategy, and procedural engagement throughout the life of a case.

For some time, a working assumption has emerged in UK securities litigation: that trials—particularly under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act—can be sensibly split, with key claimant issues like reliance and loss deferred to a later stage. However, a recent decision in California State Teachers’ Retirement System v Boohoo Group plc challenges that assumption.

The latest “Insider” report from Westfleet Advisors offers a timely snapshot of the US litigation funding market—but its implications reach far beyond a single jurisdiction. The trends identified will feel familiar to lawyers and claimants alike: a more cautious funding environment, increased scrutiny, and shifting dynamics between funders and their investors.

Erso were proud to sponsor and take part in the 4th Annual ITA Conference on International Arbitration in the Mining Sector.

The European Commission has paused EU-wide regulation of third-party litigation funding, leaving a fragmented, Member State–led regulatory landscape in place while reserving the option to revisit the issue in future.

Another attempt to introduce federal regulation of litigation funding in the U.S. stalled in Congress this week, underscoring how difficult it remains to reach consensus on transparency and oversight.

Erso Investment Counsel Bob Knock gives some honest advice for those preparing case summaries when applying for funding.

The government has renewed its commitment to reverse the 2023 PACCAR ruling, bringing much-needed clarity to litigation funding in England and Wales. For funders and claimants alike, this promises to restore confidence, flexibility, and access to justice in cases where funding is critical.