Recent Decision Highlights Discoverability of Funding Arrangements
In a recent discovery dispute in the Northern District of California, Judge Sallie Kim has ordered the plaintiff to produce litigation funding agreements, finding them relevant to potential witness bias. The April 29, 2025 order in Correct Transmission, LLC v. Juniper Networks Inc (Case No. 21-cv-09284-RFL) provides important guidance on when litigation funding arrangements may be discoverable despite work product protection claims.
Case Background
The case involves patent infringement claims brought by Correct Transmission against Juniper Networks. The patents-in-suit have an interesting ownership history, having changed hands multiple times before the current litigation:
- Originally owned by Orckit Communications (co-founded by CEO Izhak Tamir)
- After liquidation, purchased by Orckit IP in 2015 (funded by Tamir)
- Later assigned to Correct Transmission for enforcement and licensing
- Correct Transmission then entered into litigation funding agreements to monetize the patents
The dispute centered on whether these litigation funding agreements should be produced to the defendant.
Witness Bias and Financial Interest
The court found the agreements relevant to witness bias because they would reveal how much two key witnesses—Jeremy Pitcock (Correct Transmission’s manager and sole owner) and Izhak Tamir—stood to gain financially from a successful outcome in the litigation.
The court noted that “Pitcock specifically testified at the other trial that he cannot remember the specific amounts because the formulae are contained in the litigation funding agreements.” The court determined that the defendant was “entitled to question them about the full amount of funds that they can obtain and not simply rely on an estimate based on faulty memory.”
Work Product Protection Analysis
While recognizing that litigation funding agreements can qualify as work product, the court conducted an in camera review and found that these specific agreements “do not contain any mental impressions or analyses of the lawyers” with limited exceptions.
The court explained that “The only exceptions to this are the litigation fee budget and litigation cost budget, which does encompass attorneys’ thoughts and impressions and which are not relevant to the issue of bias.”
The Court’s Order
Based on this analysis, Judge Kim ordered: “Plaintiff to produce the litigation funding agreements to Defendant, without the litigation fee budget and litigation cost budget, by May 14, 2025.”
Practical Implications for Patent Litigators
This decision reinforces several key principles for practitioners:
- Litigation funding agreements may be discoverable when they contain information relevant to witness bias
- Courts are willing to parse these agreements to protect genuine work product while allowing discovery of factual information
- Parties relying on third-party funding should be prepared for potential disclosure of financial arrangements
- When witnesses can’t recall specific financial terms but reference written agreements, those documents may become discoverable
The case serves as a reminder that while litigation funding continues to play an important role in patent enforcement, parties should structure these arrangements with potential discovery obligations in mind.
Correct Transmission, LLC v. Juniper Networks Inc, Case No. 21-cv-09284-RFL (SK) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2025).
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. For more information about this case, contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or at SGibson@jmbm.com.