[rayiner]

Plaintiffs have zero interest in lengthening cases and neither do litigation funders. Litigation funders are paying the attorney's fees and ending the case more quickly reduces how much they have to invest. Reaching a resolution quickly also reduces how long they have to wait to get a recovery.

[msandford]

Plaintiffs and litigation funders have no interest in lengthening cases once they feel they have a high likelihood of winning. Until that point, lengthen away! Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

[rayiner]

> Better to string it out and win than finish it up quick and lose.

In practice, it's the defense that will string out a case hoping that the plaintiff runs out of money before the case reaches judgment on the merits. Plaintiffs want to win quick, or at least lose quick before they invest too much in the case.

[msandford]

That's a strategy both sides choose to employ actually. Imagine BigCo suing LittleCo notionally for infringing one of its patents, but really it's to drain LittleCo's coffers so that LittleCo is out of business and can't compete with BigCo in market X any longer.

[petegrif]

But in this scenario BigCo isn't the one needing outside financing, is it?

[msandford]

> But in this scenario BigCo isn't the one needing outside financing, is it?

No, I was refuting the idea that only defendants stretched litigation out. The entity with more money stretches litigation out, doesn't matter which side they're on.