Last
year,
I
had
the
good
fortune
to
be
invited
to
attend
the
first
Contingent
Risk
Insurance
Conference
hosted
by
a
leading
insurance
brokerage,
CAC
Group,
at
one
of
Washington,
D.C.’s
more
historic
addresses,
the
Mayflower
Hotel.
I
shared
some
takeaways
of
consequence
for
IP
litigators
on
these
pages
following
the
event,
including
an
exhortation
to
this
readership
to
“continue
to
look
at
how
litigation
finance
and
insurance
can
independently
and
collectively
support
their
practices
and
the
aims
of
their
clients.”
That
advice
remains
just
as
relevant
and
timely
now
as
it
was
last
year,
even
as
the
insurance
market
is
very
upfront
about
some
of
the
challenges
it
faced
in
the
past
year,
particularly
with
respect
to
its
most
popular
product
to
date,
judgment
preservation
insurance
(JPI)
policies.
Despite
those
challenges,
however,
there
is
a
lot
of
justified
excitement
about
how
insurance
can
be
of
benefit
to
IP
owners
in
particular,
as
the
industry
continues
to
evolve
alongside
litigation
finance
to
expand
the
tools
available
for
IP
owners
ready
and
willing
to
take
on
well-heeled
and
dug-in
infringers.
Eager
to
hear
the
latest
developments,
I
was
excited
to
have
the
opportunity
to
attend
this
year’s
installment,
the
second
annual
CRICON.
As
with
all
invitees,
CAC
was
kind
enough
to
cover
my
room
and
board,
within
the
stately
confines
of
the
Mayflower
once
again.
Just
like
last
year,
the
event
featured
a
notable
keynote
speaker,
former
solicitor
general
and
legendary
appellate
advocate
Paul
Clement,
as
well
as
multiple
panels
stacked
with
a
diverse
set
of
panelists
including
insurance,
litigation
finance,
and
law
firm
practitioners
active
in
the
insurance
markets
for
contingent
risk
today.
Manning
the
till
on
those
panels
were
members
of
CAC’s
own
contingent
risk
team,
which,
in
the
past
year,
has
expanded
commensurate
with
the
growth
of
interest
and
activity
in
the
contingent
risk
insurance
space.
As
you
would
probably
expect,
each
of
the
CAC
moderators
brought
an
in-depth
knowledge
of
both
insurance
and
legal
practice
to
the
respective
discussions,
enhancing
the
quality
of
the
panels
alongside
the
warm
hospitality
shown
to
all
of
the
attendees
—
a
group
15%
larger
than
at
the
initial
CRICON,
providing
further
evidence
of
the
burgeoning
interest
in
contingent
risk
insurance
products
amongst
the
legal
and
financial
communities.
Packing
a
lot
of
content
into
its
relatively-short
running
time,
CRICON
II
offered
a
lot
to
consider
for
IP
litigators
and
their
clients.
To
start,
it
seems
like
we
are
in
a
“best
of
times,
worst
of
times”
scenario
when
it
comes
to
insurance
options
for
IP
owners.
Let’s
explain.
On
the
one
hand,
the
headwinds
in
the
JPI
markets
are
likely
to
blow
steadily
for
at
least
the
next
few
years
as
insurers
work
through
the
winners
and
losers
of
extant
policyholders.
During
that
period,
claim
limits
for
JPI
policies
can
be
expected
to
be
lower,
premiums
higher,
and
stricter
due
diligence
the
order
of
the
day
for
prospective
policyholders.
For
IP
owners,
in
particular,
the
federal
circuit’s
perceived
unpredictability
—
or
even
bias
against
large
judgments
—
presents
a
specific
challenge
for
patent
holders
fortunate
to
have
secured
a
large
judgment
and
in
the
market
for
a
JPI
policy
to
lock
in
some
of
the
expected
gains.
At
the
same
time,
opportunities
to
secure
a
JPI
policy
are
not
going
away
—
and
it
is
a
sign
of
a
healthy,
maturing
market
when
the
players
are
able
to
assimilate
lessons
from
the
past
to
help
guide
to
a
healthier
future.
As
just
one
example,
insurers
are
now
keen
to
get
an
understanding
of
the
settlement
history
of
a
dispute
as
part
of
their
JPI
diligence.
For
obvious
reasons,
of
course,
but
this
level
of
attention
is
evidence
of
a
more
expansive
approach
to
diligence
that
will
serve
everyone
in
good
stead
going
forward.
So
much
for
the
“worst
of
times”
bit.
On
the
other
hand,
the
possibilities
for
insurance
products
of
interest
outside
of
JPI
policies
are
as
robust
as
ever.
In
part
because
insurers
are
looking
to
offer
portfolio-based
products
with
a
long
time
to
claim
and
many
opportunities
to
get
off
risk.
Whether
that
is
in
terms
of
a
policy
backed
by
a
contingency
law
firm’s
accrued
work
in
progress,
or
an
IP
owner’s
expected
return
from
enforcement
of
a
given
portfolio,
the
dynamic
nature
of
patent
licensing
and
enforcement
revenue
is
a
good
fit
for
the
market’s
current
appetite.
The
demand
is
there,
so
it
will
be
up
to
IP
owners
and
their
lawyers
to
bring
the
supply
of
good
portfolios
to
the
insurance
markets
to
help
get
deals
done
going
forward.
In
order
to
do
so,
working
with
knowledgeable
and
forward-thinking
brokers
like
the
team
at
CAC
will
be
an
essential
element
of
the
process.
Ultimately,
I,
for
one,
remain
excited
to
see
how
things
unfold
and
am
a
grateful
participant
in
trying
to
move
this
piece
of
our
industry
forward.
That
excitement
was
evident
amongst
other
CRICON
attendees
and
I
think
part
of
the
success
of
this
year’s
conference
was
in
energizing
attendees
to
go
forward
and
help
create
the
success
stories
for
discussion
at
next
year’s
event.
Thanks
again
to
the
good
people
at
CAC
Specialty
for
once
again
putting
on
such
a
productive
and
timely
event
and
I
continue
to
hope
that
this
readership
will
continue
to
look
at
how
litigation
finance
and
insurance
can
independently
and
collectively
support
their
practices
and
the
aims
of
their
clients.
It
will
be
fascinating
to
see
how
the
contingent
risk
market
continues
to
flourish
and
interact
with
the
IP
licensing
and
enforcement
market
in
2025
and
beyond.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
[email protected]
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at [email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.