IP: Welcome to the new patent courts
Under our system of law, the federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases.
December 20, 2011 at 04:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Under our system of law, the federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Those courts have the responsibility to decide issues of patent claim construction, patent validity and patent infringement involving complex technologies, sometimes arcane patent prosecution procedures and often subtle issues of patent law. Unfortunately, many of those issues may extend beyond the first-hand experience and personal expertise of a typical federal district judge, because patent cases are unlike any others on a federal court docket.
Some think it is the lack of judicial experience and expertise with patent issues at the trial court level that has led to an unusually high reversal rate on appeals to the Federal Circuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's recent focus on patent law cases and increasing criticism of Federal Circuit decisions may temper that view.
To improve the success-rate of district court judges in patent cases, Congress created the Patent Pilot Program for a limited number of district courts. Starting in the fall of 2011 and extending for a full decade, the program is designed to provide a select group of judges with specialized training and education to help them address the particularities of patent litigation.
Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D-Ga.), a co-sponsor of the enacting legislation, explained that the program will “create a cadre of judges who gain advanced knowledge of patent and plant variety protection through more intensified experience in handling the cases, along with special education and career development opportunities.” It is ultimately expected that the program will decrease litigation costs by increasing judicial efficiency in handling patent cases and reducing the need for appeals.
Interestingly, patent cases filed in one of the selected district courts will not automatically be assigned to a judge participating in the Patent Pilot Program. The new patent case will be initially assigned, as usual, on a random basis among the district's judges. If the case is assigned to one of the judges who is not participating in the program, that judge may decline to take the case. The new patent case will be then randomly assigned to one of the participating judges. This procedure attempts to preserve the principle of random judicial assignments to discourage forum shopping among the pilot districts.
Each participating district court is obligated to provide periodic status reports to Congress detailing whether the court has developed expertise, increased its efficiency in resolving patent cases and seen more or less patent cases since it began participating in the program.
The participating district courts are the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California, Southern District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, District of Maryland, District of Nevada, District of New Jersey, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Western District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Tennessee, and the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.
Under our system of law, the federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Those courts have the responsibility to decide issues of patent claim construction, patent validity and patent infringement involving complex technologies, sometimes arcane patent prosecution procedures and often subtle issues of patent law. Unfortunately, many of those issues may extend beyond the first-hand experience and personal expertise of a typical federal district judge, because patent cases are unlike any others on a federal court docket.
Some think it is the lack of judicial experience and expertise with patent issues at the trial court level that has led to an unusually high reversal rate on appeals to the Federal Circuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's recent focus on patent law cases and increasing criticism of Federal Circuit decisions may temper that view.
To improve the success-rate of district court judges in patent cases, Congress created the Patent Pilot Program for a limited number of district courts. Starting in the fall of 2011 and extending for a full decade, the program is designed to provide a select group of judges with specialized training and education to help them address the particularities of patent litigation.
Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D-Ga.), a co-sponsor of the enacting legislation, explained that the program will “create a cadre of judges who gain advanced knowledge of patent and plant variety protection through more intensified experience in handling the cases, along with special education and career development opportunities.” It is ultimately expected that the program will decrease litigation costs by increasing judicial efficiency in handling patent cases and reducing the need for appeals.
Interestingly, patent cases filed in one of the selected district courts will not automatically be assigned to a judge participating in the Patent Pilot Program. The new patent case will be initially assigned, as usual, on a random basis among the district's judges. If the case is assigned to one of the judges who is not participating in the program, that judge may decline to take the case. The new patent case will be then randomly assigned to one of the participating judges. This procedure attempts to preserve the principle of random judicial assignments to discourage forum shopping among the pilot districts.
Each participating district court is obligated to provide periodic status reports to Congress detailing whether the court has developed expertise, increased its efficiency in resolving patent cases and seen more or less patent cases since it began participating in the program.
The participating district courts are the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California, Southern District of Florida, Northern District of Illinois, District of Maryland, District of Nevada, District of New Jersey, Southern and Eastern Districts of
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
- 2How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 3Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 4Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 5Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250