Patent Enforcement Challenges Leave Individual Inventors Struggling Amid High Litigation Costs

Answer first: The patent enforcement landscape increasingly favors alleged infringers due to costly, prolonged litigation and strategic delays. Industry professionals emphasize that only portfolios with high damages potential and multiple patents attract financing, leaving many inventors behind. Jurisdictional differences, such as…

Litigation context for IP teams

The patent system’s foundational promise—that inventors receive a limited right to exclude in exchange for public disclosure—remains intact in theory but is increasingly conditional in practice. Patent owners often find that their rights are only enforceable if the infringement is sufficiently large, damages are high enough, the patent portfolio is deep, and there is financial backing to sustain years of litigation.

This reality was the focus of a recent IPWatchdog Unleashed discussion, which explored the challenges patent owners face once they have identified their enforceable rights and seek to pursue licensing or enforcement. Delay tactics employed by alleged infringers significantly disadvantage patent owners, as time diminishes pressure on implementers, raises enforcement costs, and opens opportunities to challenge patents or exhaust owners and their funders.

Key takeaways for patent enforcement challenges

• Confirm how the development affects litigation ownership, enforcement, licensing, or portfolio records.
• Separate confirmed facts from legal interpretation before advising business teams.
• Map deadlines, affected assets, contracts, and evidence files to the responsible internal owner.
• Use the issue as a prompt for monitoring, filing strategy, dispute preparation, or member education.

Practical analysis

As a result, infringement can be economically rational even when the patent is strong. When enforcing a patent may cost between $12 million and $20 million, delay is not incidental but a core strategy for accused infringers.

Litigation finance has become a contentious topic, often criticized as enabling frivolous lawsuits. However, industry experts argue this perspective overlooks the underlying problem: most patent owners lack the capital to fund enforcement that can cost eight figures despite the government’s examination and grant of the patent.

Phil Goter, a Barnes & Thornburg partner and former litigation-funding professional, described litigation finance as "non-recourse financing," where funders lose their investment if the case fails. He emphasized that funders only invest in cases with a high likelihood of success. Brad Close, Senior Vice President of Transpacific IP, agreed, noting that cases undergo rigorous due diligence by multiple parties before receiving funding. This scrutiny contradicts the myth that litigation finance primarily supports weak patents.

Litigation finance is thus a market response to an enforcement system that has become prohibitively expensive. The economic realities mean that infringement merits often receive serious attention only after a portfolio passes multiple preliminary screens.

Close explained that out of twenty portfolios reviewed, perhaps only one advances to detailed diligence, with the rest eliminated early due to issues such as unclear ownership, marking problems, prior licenses, government funding obligations, divided infringement concerns, venue viability, market size, or insufficient sales history to support damages.

Even a clean, infringed patent may not justify enforcement. Close highlighted the harsh economics for individual inventors: "if the damages aren’t $100 million, we can’t put together the financing necessary to take this to court." Cases involving $10 million to $20 million in damages may be devastating to patent owners but still too small to justify the expected $5 million to $10 million (or more) in litigation costs over an 8- to 10-year process including appeals.

This dynamic effectively creates a minimum damages threshold for meaningful access to patent enforcement, undermining the patent’s intended value.

Portfolio depth also matters. Goter noted that having "three, four, five, six independent assets is a very good start." Multiple patent families provide resilience against challenges such as eligibility disputes, validity attacks, claim construction battles, reexaminations, or Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. The accused infringer needs only one successful defense, while the patent owner must prevail at every stage.

The U.S. system’s reluctance to grant injunctions and its tolerance for delay have weakened patent owners’ bargaining positions. This context made the discussion of Brazil’s patent enforcement regime particularly instructive. Matheus Ramalho, partner at Licks Attorneys, described how Brazil’s availability of injunctive relief, prevailing-party attorney fees, and disgorgement-based damages can shift enforcement calculations. He explained, "our criteria for damages calculation is disgorgement of profits."

No jurisdiction is perfect, and global enforcement campaigns carry risks. Ramalho cautioned that positions taken in one forum can undermine leverage elsewhere, advising that patent owners ensure their actions preserve, rather than erode, their pressure points.

This strategic management is essential because remedies shape behavior. When implementers face credible injunctions, meaningful damages, or penalties for holdout conduct, negotiations become rational. Without such consequences, infringement becomes a financially viable strategy supported by delay.

Patent owners must recognize these systemic challenges and adapt. Kyle Vallecillo, senior IP counsel at LG Energy Solution, advocated for a prosecution approach focused on monetization potential: "if you’re prosecuting applications that you know are designed to be monetized, I would [ask] how would somebody infringe those claims"—a question to address during drafting, not after enforcement begins.

Related IIPLA reading

• Latest IP news
• IP resources library
• IP guide
• IIPLA events and webinars