Client Ties Powered Nixon Peabody's Pioneering Third Party Litigation Play
The firm helped connect Longford Capital with UC Santa Barbara to finance a patent battle with Amazon, Walmart and others over LED lightbulb technology.
July 31, 2019 at 06:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
As more capital flows into the coffers of third-party litigation funders, their success depends on finding promising areas to direct their resources. A new deal between litigation funder Longford Capital and the University of California, Santa Barbara suggests traditional law firms can play a role in advancing those ambitions.
Lawyers at Nixon Peabody parlayed their longstanding relationship with the University of California system—and a burgeoning connection with Longford Capital—to structure a novel arrangement backing a patent enforcement campaign against five retailers over energy-saving LED light bulb technology.
“The willingness of any university to take on something of this scale and to do some important leadership in technology transfer was, in my mind, going to take a strong relationship with a law firm they really trusted,” said Seth Levy, the Los Angeles-based co-chair of Nixon Peabody’s life sciences practice.
In an unusual move for the opaque litigation finance industry, Longford announced that it was supporting UCSB on Tuesday, the same day that the university filed a petition before the U.S. International Trade Commission against Amazon, Bed Bath & Beyond, IKEA, Target and Walmart and initiated complaints against the five retailers in California federal court.
The thrust of the fight is that the retail giants allegedly never secured the proper licenses to sell the LEDs, which, according to Longford and Nixon Peabody, rely on filament LED technology developed by a Nobel laureate-led team at the university. Longford said in its announcement that the market for the bulbs is expected to exceed $1 billion in sales for 2019.
Longford said it will pay for all the attorneys fees and expenses for the litigation in return for a share of any recoveries, but the specific arrangements are under wraps, including whether Nixon Peabody is also entitled to any share of the potential winnings. ITC specialists Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg are serving as co-counsel for the part of the litigation before that tribunal.
But there’s more to the story behind this particular battle. As Levy explained, the transfer of technology has evolved since the 1980′s Bayh-Dole Act first allowed publicly funded universities to monetize their own inventions, and academic leaders have finally gained a firmer sense of the value of their universities’ patent portfolios. They’re also aware that certain industry segments are particularly recalcitrant when it comes to respecting university IP.
Levy added that Longford, among litigation funders, has been at the forefront of recognizing an opportunity.
“In their view, there’s a lack of financial resources—not because universities don’t have lots of resources, but because universities have lots of other things to spend money on,” he said.
By taking advantage of outside funding, he suggested, universities can assure their stakeholders that they are not diverting funds from other priorities to fuel litigation.
Looking for ways to back the university’s claims, Longford reached out to Nixon Peabody, according to Levy. Russell Genet, the former Chicago-based head of the firm’s IP group, moved to Longford, also in the Windy City, in 2017.
The firm’s connection to the University of California system is deeper. Nixon Peabody attorneys have done real estate work for a number of the university’s campuses, handled health care matters, and Levy himself has handled some IP and technology transfer litigation.
“Ultimately, the stars aligned, given our relationship with UCSB and this issue—the explosive infringement we’ve been seeing over the last couple of years,” he said.
While Levy has never litigated cases backed by third-party funders before, he has advised investment banks that directly backed IP litigation in the past. The hope is that these cases settle as quickly as possible. Unlike direct competitors looking to see a rival’s product kept off the market, the university wants to see as many of the light bulbs sold as possible.
“Their general mission is to benefit the public,” he said. “The energy issues and waste savings associated with this product are enormous.”
|Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllStock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
8 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute read'A World of Credit': Ex-FTX Executive Gary Wang Sentenced to Time Served Following Cooperation
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250