> The problem seems to be that if an insurance company is funding the defense then they have the same incentive to pay a settlement rather than fight that anyone else does
Unless more than one client of the insurance company might be on the hook for the patent. In which case, they'd simply have to figure out if it was worthwhile to fund one lawsuit to the end, in order to see if they could save money for the other client's policies.
Lets say that settling will cost $50,000 and taking the case to trial will cost $200,000 w/ a high likelihood of success. For a single company, the calculation is simple - settle, it's cheaper. But, if an insurance company is behind 5 companies that all might be sued for infringement, then it would make sense to fight at least one of the suits in order to try to save the settlement fees from the other four.
Unless more than one client of the insurance company might be on the hook for the patent. In which case, they'd simply have to figure out if it was worthwhile to fund one lawsuit to the end, in order to see if they could save money for the other client's policies.
Lets say that settling will cost $50,000 and taking the case to trial will cost $200,000 w/ a high likelihood of success. For a single company, the calculation is simple - settle, it's cheaper. But, if an insurance company is behind 5 companies that all might be sued for infringement, then it would make sense to fight at least one of the suits in order to try to save the settlement fees from the other four.