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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

In a recent decision that may influence how courts approach discovery requests involving litigation funding, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to compel production of documents related to Haptic Inc.’s litigation funding arrangements.