It does read more like an article on "list of legal accessories you can add to a physical product to propup the chances in a IP lawsuit"... While smart, can't help but think this goes against the spirit of IP law.
Their web site makes it clear that they are not a law firm, they are a litigation finance firm. As I understand it, litigation financing takes away some of the financial risk from plaintiffs and/or attorneys by allowing them to borrow against a future return from a judgment or settlement. For plaintiffs, they can get access to money when a normal bank would not loan against an uncertain recovery. For law firms, they may be able to take cases on contingency without having to advance all of the costs of litigation. Loans are non-recourse, meaning that if the plaintiff loses, then the lender is not repaid and has no way to collect. As you might expect, the interest rates on these types of loans are incredibly high.
In some jurisdictions they may need to structure and describe it as a loan. But a non-recourse high-interest variable-payback-schedule loan is really blurring the lines between equity and debt no matter what you call it.
It's litigation financing. It does exactly what it says it is.
I agree that calling litigation financing a loan may be misleading because it could look more like debt or equity, depending on the structure. If the premium is fixed, then it looks like a zero-coupon corporate bond, except with uncertain maturity. If the premium is a percentage of the recovered amount, then it looks more like a stock investment.
The structure will probably also depend on the entity being funded (a corporate entity, a law firm, or an individual plaintiff). For a law firm, there are ethical restrictions on fee-sharing with non-lawyers. For individuals, there may be consumer protection laws that apply. Also, if the structure looks like a loan then laws regulating lenders may apply.
I'm not an expert in this, I just know enough to know it's complicated.
The article says "I am not a lawyer", so he cannot be CEO of a lawfirm, at least not in the US.
( https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili... )
It's hilarious to me because that seems like the type of statement a lawyer would tell you to make. It's concise and doesn't offer any information beyond being the exact truth.
I read the article and wouldn't have realized he has any affiliation, so it's not like he's schilling real hard or anything. There's a couple good points too. I've never heard of a provisional patent before.
I think the implication is pretty clear: if need this information for a real practical purpose make sure you consult someone who actually is a lawyer.
Sometimes this also applies to other professions.