Thus, in instances where they are objectively wrong, they lose big. In instances you are objectively wrong, you lose big. In instances where it is not black and white, where there is merit to both sides of the argument, you settle. All this is achieved with little intervention by the courts.
Note also that the "loser" factors in offers to settle. So if I offer you $10,000 to settle and you refuse and the court awards only $5,000 to you, you are the one that has to pay my legal bill, even though I am the one that "lost".
If one party wins, they do not have to pay the legal fees of the looser.
Settlement offers have no bearing on this.
If one party wins, their (reasonable) legal fees usually are paid by the loosing party. Except if the judge orders both sides to pay their own.
If you offer £10k settlement, and I refuse, and I win £5k, you’d have to give me £5k, plus pay my and your legal fees. What I don’t get to say is you offered £10k so I want that instead.
We had a guy in Australia trying to use our trademark, in the US they would call my bluff and I would have to spend tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to sue. In Australia we sent a polite letter, outlined our case that was pretty clear, reminded him he would pay our legal if we escalated and made it clear we would, and the result was immediate.
In short, companies shouldn’t be incentivized to play game theory on whether or not you will sue me if I trample your rights.