Overview
As the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continues to evolve, the question of whether insurance can serve as acceptable cost security has become a defining issue for parties litigating before the court. Patentees and alleged infringers need to navigate relatively high upfront costs and the UPC’s emerging cost-reimbursement framework. The Court of Appeal’s decisions in Syntorr v. Arthrex have become a landmark on these topics, opening the door more fully to insurance-sector participation and influencing how litigation strategies are shaped at the UPC. McDermott Will & Schulte was counsel to Syntorr which successfully established that insurance, if it is on adequate terms, can remove the need to provide any other cost security.
To explore these implications from both a litigation and market wide perspective, we assessed how the decisions in Syntorr v. Arthrex may impact UPC case strategy, risk allocation, and the evolving European litigation funding environment.
We also explored, more broadly, other key developments in litigation funding such as the current insurance market for legal asset investments and a related US regulatory update on hot topics.
Discussion topics included:
- Key insights from the UPC’s decisions on cost security, and the practical significance for litigators and litigation funders
- Insurance sector perspectives on after-the-event insurance and cost-security products post Syntorr v. Arthrex
- A litigation funding market update, including recent developments and emerging trends for funders, litigants and insurers