Ever wondered if Google could benefit from digital advertising to court users? Taking notice of the technology developed by the San Diego based Impact Engine, Google invited them to meetings to discuss a potential partnership. Rather than a partnership, the end result was patent infringement and a lawsuit filed in July 2019.
According to the lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2019,” Google invited Impact Engine to multiple meetings at its Mountain View headquarters, required Impact Engine to provide prototypes, documentation, and source code, and falsely promised a cooperative partnership to bring Impact Engine’s ideas to Google’s larger platform.”
The complaint went on to say that “through its persistent, unlicensed use of Impact Engine’s inventions, Google extracted billions of dollars in revenue from advertisers, website publishers, and advertising agencies.”
In light of the high cost of litigation, how is David to engage with Goliath in court? One avenue is litigation financing, a third-party funding offering the Davids access to capital without the risk of repayment if the case is lost. This capital allows the plaintiffs to cover the cost of attorney fees, law and motion, discovery, trial, court fees, experts and more. One such investor cites retired New York Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten “Litigation funding allows lawsuits to be decided on their merits, and not based on which party has deeper pockets or stronger appetite for protracted litigation.”
Should Goliath know who is financing David’s litigation cost? Google argued it should and asked for the funding agreement and all related documents. The court disagreed and found that the documents are protected by the work product doctrine, and Google cannot get access to “documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by and for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent).”
Final words “Impact Engine is not required to produce them.” Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo