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

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.