Pricing IP Litigation

Subscribe to Pricing IP Litigation

The negotiation of an alternative fee, even if unsuccessful, provides the client with valuable feedback on their case.  As discussed by Cisco litigation manager Neal Rubin on Legal OnRamp:

[C]ounsel’s willingness (or unwillingness) to share the risks and rewards of litigation can help the client assess the strengths and weaknesses of its case. . . . [A] firm’s willingness to accept risk provides a useful litmus test that can help instruct the client whether it has realistically assessed the strength of the case. The straight billable hour model provides no such feedback.

We find ourselves applying this litmus test to a potential IP enforcement matter.  The results suggest the client may not have the strong case it thought it did, and that the engagement will crater.  So how did we get to this point, and what good can come from the possibility that we may lose the engagement?
Continue Reading Willingness to Flat Fee is a Litmus Test

Adam Smith Esq. recently discussed a major obstacle to setting a fixed price for litigation: trust.

Sadly, for too many of us, clients don’t trust us with their money and we don’t trust them to reward us fairly.

The view from here in the trenches of flat fee IP litigation is that the trust issue is really about determining what a case is worth to a client.  In order to flat fee a project, you have to be willing to step off the cliff with your client.

The client is never going to agree to a flat fee unless it is convinced the amount invested in legal services (the flat fee) will generate an appropriate return on the investment.   The ROI determination, in turn, is based on the determination of what it is worth to the client to enforce its IP or defend claims brought by others seeking to enforce their IP.  This brings us to the trust issue, and our first  insight:

In our experience, the flat fee lawyer has no choice other than to Continue Reading Trust your client’s instincts

John Maynard Keynes’ quote "in the long run we are all dead" rejected the notion that inflation would control itself absent government intervention in the short term.  It has equal application to flat fee pricing of litigation, where, for many clients, all that matters is what the lawyer is doing (and charging) “today,” because there is no “tomorrow.”

We do not dispute that "the fixed fee can be split into segments," (as stated most recently in Adam Smith, Esq.) but clearly some segments (the first!) are far more important than others.

Many early adopters of Confluence Law Partners, CLP’s flat fee IP litigation model are smaller sized technology companies that can’t afford the high cost of hiring hourly billing IP litigators.   These clients care little about the price of the entire litigation, not because their matters are expected to conclude any earlier or are easier to resolve than a typical IP litigation, but due to the limited amount of money available to spend on lawyers.

The client mindset is that it is OK to bail on the litigation, and that their lawyers should be ready at any time to help them implement this action – even if they’ve previously failed to share this strategy with counsel.

So what is the best approach to setting a fixed price?Continue Reading Setting a fixed price: focus on the short term