Patent Litigation Funding Due Diligence — New York
Patent Intelligence Group is an independent provider of patent litigation funding diligence for litigation finance firms — based in New York, serving clients worldwide.
Patent Litigation Funding Diligence — Independent Analysis for Litigation Finance Firms
Patent litigation funding diligence is what separates a confident investment decision from an expensive mistake. Before you commit capital to a patent enforcement case, you need to know the infringement is real, the patents will hold, and the damages are recoverable. We provide the independent analytical layer between a case presentation and your investment decision — structured claim charts, validity assessments, damages models, and full investment diligence packages built specifically for litigation finance firms.
Serving
Patent Litigation Firms
Litigation Finance Funds
Hedge Funds
Corporate Development Teams
Investors & Acquirers
The Problem
Why Independent Patent Litigation Funding Diligence Matters — Every Case Looks Strong in the Pitch
Case presenters lead with their best claims. They choose the most favorable accused products. They project damages at the high end. Litigation funders who rely solely on the case presentation are evaluating someone else’s optimism — not the actual risk profile of the investment.
Infringement Claims Need Independent Verification
A claim chart produced by the patent owner's counsel is advocacy, not analysis. An independent claim chart — built by analysts with no stake in the outcome — tells you whether the infringement actually holds up element by element before you commit capital.
IPR Risk Can End a Case Before Trial
The defendant's first move in many patent cases is an IPR petition at PTAB. If the asserted patents are vulnerable to invalidity challenges, that risk needs to be quantified before investment — not discovered after a petition is filed. Patent Intelligence Group assesses IPR vulnerability on every case it reviews.
Damages Models Are Often Optimistic
Damages projections in case presentations frequently reflect best-case assumptions about claim scope, royalty rates, and the accused infringer's revenue base. Independent damages modeling stress-tests those assumptions and gives funders a realistic recovery range to structure against.
Post-Investment Risk Monitoring Rarely Happens
Most litigation funders conduct diligence at entry and then rely on counsel updates through the life of the case. MoatWatch™ provides continuous, independent monitoring — tracking IPR proceedings, litigation developments, and patent health events from investment through resolution.
Four Reports
A Diligence Report for Every Stage of the Evaluation
Each report can be commissioned independently or as part of the full four-step framework — building from initial case screening through complete investor-ready diligence.
Step 1
Infringer Landscape Report
Identifies and prioritizes likely infringers of the asserted patents — mapping who is practicing the claims and where. The starting point for any case evaluation. Gives funders a market overview of the enforcement opportunity before committing to deeper diligence.
Delivered in 3–5 business days
Step 2
Claim Chart Report
Element-by-element mapping of patent claims to the features of accused products — the evidentiary standard litigation funders require before committing capital. Built independently, without advocacy. Covers the specific accused products most relevant to the enforcement theory.
Delivered in 5–7 business days
Step 3
Litigation Viability Report
A comprehensive risk assessment covering patent validity, IPR vulnerability, prosecution history, claim scope, damages modeling, and overall enforcement potential. Gives funders the complete picture of case strength and risk — independently assessed, without advocacy — before making an investment decision.
Delivered in 7–10 business days
Step 4
Investment Diligence Report
The complete investor-ready due diligence package — covering all dimensions of the enforcement case in a single structured deliverable. Infringement strength, validity, IPR risk, Section 101 eligibility analysis, damages, defendant profile, litigation risk scoring, and an overall investment thesis assessment. Built to the evaluation standards of top litigation finance firms.
Delivered in 10–14 business days
All engagements are fixed-price. No hourly billing. No scope creep. Each report is a defined deliverable at a defined price — so you know exactly what you are getting before the engagement begins. Contact us to discuss scope and pricing for your specific matter.
The Evaluation Framework
Five Criteria Every Litigation Finance Firm Uses to Evaluate a Patent Case
Understanding how funders evaluate cases is the starting point for understanding what diligence they need. Patent Intelligence Group structures every report to address these five dimensions directly.
Infringement Evidence
1
Funders require detailed claim charts — element-by-element mapping of patent claims to accused product features — before seriously evaluating a case. This is the evidentiary foundation every funder needs before committing capital.
Claim Charts
Infringer Landscape
Patent Strength & Validity
2
Funders assess IPR vulnerability, prior art exposure, prosecution history weaknesses, and Section 101 eligibility. A patent that is vulnerable to PTAB challenge or § 101 invalidation represents a case risk that must be quantified before investment.
IPR Vulnerability
101 Analysis
Prior Art Review
Damages Potential
3
Most litigation finance firms require estimated damages potential of at least $20 million before seriously evaluating a case. A credible, independently modeled damages range — not a best-case projection — is what funders need to structure a return-based investment decision.
Damages Modeling
Recovery Range
Defendant Profile
4
Funders evaluate the accused infringer’s ability to pay a judgment or settlement, litigation history, and the strategic likelihood of settlement versus trial. A case against a defendant with deep pockets and a history of licensing is very different from one against a company that fights every case to trial.
Defendant Analysis
Settlement Probability
Litigation Strategy & Economics
5
Venue selection, estimated litigation cost, likely timeline, and the overall risk-adjusted economics of the case. Funders need to model their return against a realistic cost and timeline picture — not an optimistic scenario.
Litigation Risk Scoring
Venue Analysis
$20M+
Minimum damages threshold most litigation funders require
Cases with multiple defendants, willful infringement findings, or enhanced damages potential are generally more attractive. Patent Intelligence Group’s damages modeling gives funders an independently verified recovery range — not a projection from the case presentation.
Our Methodology
The Patent Litigation Funding Readiness Framework™
A structured four-step methodology that takes a patent enforcement case from initial screening through complete investor-ready diligence. Each step builds on the last — so funders can enter at the right stage and exit with the confidence their investment decision requires.
Every step can be commissioned independently based on where you are in the evaluation process. A funder who has already reviewed a claim chart may only need the Litigation Viability Report. A funder evaluating a case from scratch can commission all four steps in sequence.
1
Infringer Identification
Map the enforcement landscape — who is practicing the claims, in which products, at what scale. Determines whether the case is worth pursuing further.
2
Claim Chart Preparation
Element-by-element infringement mapping against the most commercially significant accused products. The evidentiary standard funders and courts require.
3
Litigation Viability Assessment
Independent evaluation of patent strength, IPR vulnerability, prosecution history, damages potential, and the overall risk-adjusted case economics.
4
Investment Diligence Package
The complete picture — all dimensions of case risk in a single investor-ready deliverable, structured to meet the standards of top litigation finance firms.
5
MoatWatch™ — Ongoing Matter Monitoring
Continuous independent surveillance of the funded matter from investment through resolution — IPR alerts, litigation developments, and monthly intelligence reports.
MoatWatch™
Your Investment Doesn't End at Close.
Neither Does the Risk.
Most litigation funders conduct diligence at entry and then rely on updates from plaintiff’s counsel through the life of the case. That creates an information asymmetry — the funder is dependent on the party with the most incentive to present an optimistic picture.
MoatWatch™ gives litigation funders an independent monitoring channel alongside counsel reporting. It tracks every material development in the funded matter and delivers alerts when material events occur — with the investment implications explained, not just the legal developments described.
Real-Time IPR Alerts
Petition filed, institution decision, trial proceeding, final written decision — each alert explains what it means for the funded matter’s risk profile.
Litigation Developments Tracked
Claim construction orders, summary judgment rulings, venue decisions, and settlement signals — monitored and flagged with investment context.
Monthly Matter Intelligence Reports
A complete independent summary of all developments in the funded matter — formatted for investment committee use, not for the legal file.
Patent Health Monitoring
Tracks the health of the asserted patents through the life of the investment — continuation filings, reexamination proceedings, and related patent activity.
When MoatWatch Fires During a Funded Matter
Pre-Trial
IPR Petition Filed
Alert upon petition filing — with prior art assessment, petitioner win rate, and impact on case value.
PTAB
Institution Decision
Alert upon institution or denial — with updated risk scoring and recommended action for the investment.
District Court
Claim Construction Order
Alert upon issuance of the court’s Markman ruling — with analysis of how the constructions affect infringement scope.
PTAB
Final Written Decision
Alert upon the FWD — with assessment of which claims survived, what was cancelled, and what it means for the case.
Monthly
Matter Intelligence Report
Complete independent summary of all developments — delivered monthly, formatted for IC review.
Why Funders Choose Us
Independent. Fixed-Price. Built for Investment Decisions.
The analytical layer between a case presentation and a confident investment decision.
100+
Patent engagements completed
$2B+
In patent damages analyzed
15+
Technology verticals covered
Fixed
Price — no hourly billing, no scope creep
“We use Patent Intelligence Group as part of our initial screening process. Their claim charts and damages analysis save our team weeks of internal work on every deal we evaluate.
Investment Director
Litigation Finance Fund
“The IPR vulnerability analysis flagged prior art we hadn’t seen in the case presentation. That finding changed our position before we committed capital. That’s exactly what independent diligence is supposed to do.
Portfolio Manager
Patent Investment Fund
“The Investment Diligence Report gave us a structured, independent picture of the case — infringement strength, validity risk, and a realistic damages range. It was the most useful pre-commitment analysis we had seen on this matter.
Managing Director
Institutional Litigation Finance Firm
Common Questions
Patent Litigation Funding Diligence — FAQs
Answers to the questions litigation finance firms ask most often about independent patent diligence.
What is patent litigation funding diligence?
Patent litigation funding diligence is the independent analysis a litigation finance firm commissions before committing capital to a patent enforcement case. It evaluates whether the infringement is real and provable, whether the patents are valid and defensible against IPR challenge, what the realistic damages range is, and what the overall risk-adjusted return looks like. Patent Intelligence Group provides structured diligence reports specifically designed to meet the evaluation standards of top litigation finance firms — from initial infringer identification through full investment diligence packages.
What does an independent patent diligence report for litigation funders include?
Patent Intelligence Group’s litigation funding diligence reports cover four key dimensions: infringement analysis through claim charts mapping patent claims element by element to accused products; validity assessment covering IPR vulnerability, prosecution history analysis, and prior art exposure; damages modeling providing realistic recovery ranges under both lost profits and reasonable royalty frameworks; and litigation risk scoring covering defendant profile, venue analysis, and overall enforcement viability. Reports are structured as standalone deliverables at each stage and as a four-step framework building toward a full investor-ready diligence package.
What is a claim chart and why do litigation funders require one?
A claim chart is a structured document that maps each element of a patent claim to corresponding features of an accused product or process — proving element by element that the product practices the claim. Litigation funders require claim charts because they provide objective, structured proof that infringement exists, rather than a legal opinion that it might. A well-constructed claim chart is the evidentiary foundation of any patent enforcement case. Patent Intelligence Group produces investor-grade claim charts as a standalone report and as part of its full diligence packages.
What is IPR vulnerability and why does it matter for litigation funders?
IPR stands for Inter Partes Review — a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where a defendant or third party can challenge the validity of the asserted patents. IPR vulnerability is one of the most important risk factors in patent litigation funding because a successful IPR petition can invalidate the patents and effectively end the case. Litigation funders need to know the IPR risk profile of any case before committing capital — including which claims are most vulnerable, what prior art exists, and what the petitioner win rate looks like in the relevant technology area. Patent Intelligence Group assesses IPR vulnerability as part of every litigation viability and investment diligence report.
How is patent damages analysis done for litigation funding purposes?
Patent damages for litigation funding purposes are analyzed under two frameworks: lost profits — what the patent owner lost due to infringement — and reasonable royalty — what the parties would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation. For litigation funders, the key output is a realistic recovery range that accounts for claim construction risk, IPR exposure, and the defendant’s ability to pay. Patent Intelligence Group models damages as part of its Litigation Viability and Investment Diligence Reports, giving funders the financial analysis needed to structure a return-based investment decision.
What is the Patent Litigation Funding Readiness Framework?
The Patent Litigation Funding Readiness Framework™ is Patent Intelligence Group’s proprietary four-step methodology for evaluating a patent enforcement case across all dimensions relevant to litigation finance. Step 1 is the Infringer Landscape Report — identifying and prioritizing who is practicing the claims. Step 2 is the Claim Chart Report — proving infringement element by element. Step 3 is the Litigation Viability Report — assessing patent strength, IPR risk, and damages potential. Step 4 is the Investment Diligence Report — a full investor-ready package covering all dimensions of case risk. Each step can be commissioned independently or as part of the full framework.
How long does patent litigation funding diligence take?
Patent Intelligence Group delivers litigation funding diligence reports on fixed timelines. The Infringer Landscape Report is delivered in 3 to 5 business days. The Claim Chart Report is delivered in 5 to 7 business days per patent per product. The Litigation Viability Report is delivered in 7 to 10 business days. The Investment Diligence Report is delivered in 10 to 14 business days. All engagements are fixed-price — no hourly billing, no scope creep. Contact us to discuss scope and pricing for your specific matter.
What ongoing monitoring is available after a litigation funding investment is made?
Patent Intelligence Group’s MoatWatch™ service provides ongoing monitoring of funded patent matters through the life of the investment. MoatWatch tracks all IPR proceedings — including petitions, institution decisions, trial proceedings, and final written decisions — as well as litigation developments, claim construction orders, and patent health events. It delivers real-time alerts when material events occur and monthly matter intelligence reports. This gives litigation funders continuous independent visibility into the risk profile of their investment from commitment through resolution.
What is patent litigation funding?
Patent litigation funding involves third-party investors financing patent infringement lawsuits in exchange for a portion of any settlement or judgment. The funder covers attorney fees, expert witnesses, discovery costs, and court expenses. Because patent litigation can cost $3–10 million or more, litigation finance has fundamentally changed who can enforce a patent — allowing cases with strong merits to proceed regardless of the patent owner’s financial resources. For funders, the key challenge is identifying which cases have the merits to justify the investment, which is where independent diligence is essential.
How do litigation finance firms evaluate patent cases?
Litigation finance firms evaluate patent cases on five core criteria: infringement evidence (requiring detailed claim charts proving element-by-element infringement), patent strength and validity (IPR risk, prior art exposure, Section 101 eligibility), damages potential (most funders require $20M+ before serious evaluation), defendant profile (ability to pay and litigation history), and litigation strategy (venue, cost, timeline, and settlement probability). Patent Intelligence Group structures its diligence reports to address each of these criteria directly — giving funders an independently verified assessment across all five dimensions.
What is a 101 analysis and why does it matter for litigation funding?
A 101 analysis evaluates whether patent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Following the Alice/Mayo framework, courts have invalidated many software and business method patents on eligibility grounds. Litigation funders routinely assess 101 risk because a successful § 101 challenge can end a case before infringement is ever adjudicated — eliminating the funder’s entire investment. Patent Intelligence Group includes Section 101 eligibility analysis as part of its Investment Diligence Report for cases involving software, business methods, or other potentially abstract subject matter.
What percentage of recovery do patent litigation funders typically receive?
Patent litigation funders typically receive between 20% and 40% of any recovery, or a multiple of invested capital — whichever is greater — depending on case strength, the amount of capital deployed, and the stage at which funding is provided. Funders investing earlier and in higher-risk cases typically require a higher return. Cases with strong independent diligence packages — credible infringement evidence, low IPR vulnerability, realistic damages modeling — generally command better terms because they present a more defined risk profile for the funder to underwrite against.
Who We Are
Independent Patent Diligence for Litigation Finance — Built by an Engineer and a Lawyer
Patent Intelligence Group provides independent patent litigation funding diligence for litigation finance firms worldwide. We are not a law firm. We are not a funder. We are the independent analytical layer between a patent enforcement case and the investment decision it requires.
Our founder is a New York and Texas licensed patent attorney with 20+ years of patent prosecution and litigation experience — combined with an engineering background that allows direct technical analysis of claims and accused products. That means we read claims the way a patent examiner does, evaluate prosecution history and IPR vulnerability the way a litigator does, and model damages the way an investment analyst does. Diligence you can actually structure a return against.
Get Started
Ready for an Independent View of the Case?
Tell us about the matter under evaluation — the patents, the accused products, and where you are in the diligence process. We will recommend the right report and be ready to start within 48 hours.
Or call us directly: 646-397-3003 · New York, NY
Patent Intelligence Group provides independent analytical services only. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. Our reports are analytical tools to support investment decisions — not legal opinions.