Third-party Litigation Funding in Patent Cases: Forum Shopping, Disclosure, and the Case for a Uniform Rule

As part of its ongoing deterrence efforts, Unified Patents continues to track and report on Third-party Litigation Funding (TPLF), providing greater transparency into this growing yet still poorly understood segment of the patent litigation landscape. Below is the abstract and key takeaways from a recently published article by Korok Ray and his team at Texas A&M University. This independent academic work, grounded in Unified’s data, validates the core of our TPLF advocacy. It is available for download on SSRN HERE.


ABSTRACT

U.S. patent litigation has come to rely on third-party litigation funding (TPLF), which involves an external investor providing funds to pay for a lawsuit or a law firm in return for its share of any recovery. This paper uses a litigation dataset spanning January 2010 through June 2026 to examine the growth of identified TPLF, its concentration across federal patent venues, the role of non-practicing entities, and the policy implications of uneven disclosure requirements. The data show a long-run increase in identified funding, with TPLF reaching roughly one quarter of filings in the most recent period, alongside a renewed concentration of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and a decline in Delaware following the adoption of heightened disclosure requirements. The paper also examines how changes in inter partes review practice alter the litigation environment in which patent owners, defendants, and funders operate, and evaluates competing approaches to TPLF regulation, including case-by-case disclosure, a uniform federal disclosure rule, targeted legislation, and prohibition. It concludes that a uniform disclosure framework is preferable to the current court-by-court patchwork, while distinguishing disclosure of funder identity and control rights from automatic production of all economically sensitive funding terms.

Key Takeaways:

  • Funded entities are now driving one in four patent filings. The TPLF share rose from 5.77% (2010–2012) to 11.36% (2017–2020), 20.45% (2021–2024), and 25.43% in 2025.

  • TPLF-backed plaintiffs are avoiding courts that require disclosure. Delaware's share of patent cases fell from 22.2% (2017–2020) to 11.1% (2025) after Judge Connolly's April 2022 funding order, while E.D. Tex.—no disclosure rule—climbed to 29.1%.

  • NPEs are continuing to make up the lions-share of patent litigations. NPEs now account for roughly 54% of cases, up from about 47% in the 2000–2021 study. Uniloc entities alone account for 1,079 cases.

  • PTAB changes may fuel more funding. IPR petitions fell from 698 (1H 2025) to 174 (1H 2026). Monthly institution dropped from 81.8% to as low as 19.4%, and NPE-owned patents are instituted at 27.2% vs. 41.4% for operating companies. The authors identify three channels for further TPLF growth: less invalidation risk for funded campaigns, shifted settlement leverage, and older portfolios becoming more attractive to acquire.

To read more, download on SSRN HERE.

Wi-Fi Economic Report Update: Wi-Fi 7 adds no value over Wi-Fi 6

Unified Patents and The Brattle Group, a renowned group of economists and damages experts, announced an update to its 2025 Wi-Fi RAND Licensing Rate Report, extending the analysis to Wi-Fi 7 and to developments in the Wi-Fi standard-essential patent licensing market since the original report. The full report is available exclusively to members of Unified Patents’ Wi-Fi Zone.

The 2025 report estimated an aggregate reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty range of $0.45 to $0.68 per device for Wi-Fi functionality through Wi-Fi 6/6E. The update examines whether Wi-Fi 7 justifies raising that range and whether separate royalty rates for enterprise and residential access points can be reconciled with RAND principles, drawing on new pool launches, recently published rate cards, a European court decision, and current market data.

The update reaches two principal conclusions. First, although Wi-Fi 7 delivers meaningful engineering advances, they improve performance along dimensions the standard already priced rather than introducing a qualitatively new source of value, and recent licensing evidence is consistent with this view. Brattle therefore concludes that the aggregate RAND range for Wi-Fi functionality through Wi-Fi 7 remains $0.45 to $0.68 per unit, as a single cumulative rate rather than an additional royalty for each generation. Second, the report finds an economic basis for a moderate premium on enterprise access points relative to residential products, grounded in differences in how much of the standard each product class implements and in the price sensitivity of its buyers. The full report sets out the supporting analysis, the market evidence, and the implications for implementers.

For more information, email sasha@unifiedpatents.com.

ITFT vehicle patent being investigated

The team at Unified is using Pearl to identify and chart prior art against a patent owned by Innovative Technology for Transportation (ITFT). The patent covers a vehicle safety system that connects to a vehicle’s CAN bus to monitor driving and enable remote control through a wireless-device app. For more details, contact info@unifiedpatents.com.

ASSIA networking patents being investigated

The team at Unified is using Pearl to identify and chart prior art against patents owned by Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. (ASSIA). The patents describe distributed coordination among wireless access points to improve network efficiency. ASSIA have used several patents in suits against AT&T and others. For more details, contact info@unifiedpatents.com.

Another Wilus Wi-Fi patent challenge granted

On September 30, 2026, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 10,651,992, owned by Wilus Institute of Standards & Technology, Inc., an entity of Good Day to Invent, Inc. This overcame Wilus’s Pre-Order Paper seeking denial. The '992 patent relates to a wireless communication method for coexistence between a legacy wireless communication terminal and a non-legacy wireless communication terminal in a wireless communication environment. It has been asserted against Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) enabled network devices made by TP-Link and Askey Computer.

View district court litigations by Wilus. Unified is represented by in-house counsel, Vinu Raj and TJ Murphy, in this proceeding.

To view the reexamination request, visit Unified’s Portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/exparte/90016496