New Patent Cases Filed in Waco Will Be Randomly Assigned Among Western District of Texas Courts and Divisions

Jul 28, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

On July 25, 2022, Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued an Order Assigning the Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases, ordering that all patent cases filed in the Western District’s Waco Division be randomly assigned to 12 judges across the district, including to courts in San Antonio, Austin and El Paso.  New patent cases filed in the Western District’s other divisions are not subject to this random assignment. 

Chief Judge Garcia’s order responds to the explosion in patent filings in District Judge Alan Albright’s court.  Since Judge Albright’s confirmation as the sole district judge in the Waco division in 2018, the number of patent cases filed in the Western District has grown dramatically, from less than 100 per year to nearly 1000 new case filings in 2021.  Almost all of those cases have landed in Judge Albright’s court.  As a result, Judge Albright currently oversees about 20 percent of all pending U.S. patent cases, more than any other district court judge in the country.      

This consolidation of patent cases into a single court has drawn criticism from both the Federal Circuit and the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee.  Over the last two years, the Federal Circuit has granted multiple mandamus petitions overturning Judge Albright’s denials of transfer motions.  And in November 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thom Tillis sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts expressing their concern about the concentration of patent cases in a single court, saying that it “creates an appearance of impropriety” that is “unseemly and inappropriate.”

The new random assignment process addresses these criticisms by limiting plaintiffs’ ability to deliberately choose Judge Albright’s court over other venues.  Now, patent plaintiffs who file in Waco hoping to have their case heard by Judge Albright will have only a one-in-twelve chance of seeing that happen.  Instead, patent cases filed in the Waco division are far more likely to land elsewhere in the district, including the San Antonio division, where five of the 12 district judges identified in Chief Judge Garcia’s order sit. 

Chief Judge Garcia’s order does not affect the hundreds of patent cases already on Judge Albright’s docket, but it is expected to substantially curtail the number of new patent cases filed in Waco.  The extent of the impact remains to be seen, however, and will likely depend on whether other courts within the Western District of Texas adopt some or all of Judge Albright’s standing orders and guidelines pertaining to patent cases. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.