Top US Patent Districts Diverge on Merits-Based Outcomes

RPX data on US patent litigation outcomes show that patent cases tend to get adjudicated on the merits more often at different stages depending at the district.

For cases closed in 2018 through 2020, an analysis of some of the nation’s most popular patent venues reveals some key distinctions. In the Eastern District of Texas, for example, two-thirds of closed cases were resolved through jury verdicts, a much greater percentage than the other venues shown—whereas far fewer, 24%, were decided at summary judgment. This higher percentage of jury verdict resolutions may be the result of prior rules in East Texas that discouraged litigants from filing summary judgment motions (by requiring would-be filers to first seek permission from the court to do so). Were it not for those rules, more such motions might have been brought in that venue.

Additionally, in the Central District of California, cases were adjudicated about two-thirds of the time at summary judgment in 2018-2020, compared to just under half of the time for the District of Delaware. For its part, Delaware had the highest share of cases decided through judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), at 14%; as well as the greatest amount resolved through bench trials (9%).

The Western District of Texas and the Northern District of California, meanwhile, have a fairly similar share of dismissals due to jury verdicts and summary judgments, respectively—although the sample sizes are much smaller for West Texas, likely due to its fairly recent rise in the rankings as a patent venue. Indeed, since District Judge Alan D. Albright—whose courtroom has accounted for the lion’s share of that rise—did not assume the bench until late 2018, he did not hold his first patent trial until roughly two years later, meaning that the results below reflect just a single verdict (a noninfringement verdict for Roku in 2020).