James Rodney Gilstrap | |
---|---|
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas | |
Assumed office March 1, 2018 | |
Preceded by | Ron Clark |
Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas | |
Assumed office December 6,2011 | |
Appointed by | Barack Obama |
Preceded by | Thad Heartfield |
Personal details | |
Born | Pensacola,Florida | May 1,1957
Education | Baylor University (BA,JD) |
James Rodney Gilstrap (born May 1,1957) (also known as J. Rodney Gilstrap or Rodney Gilstrap) is the Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is notable for presiding over more than one quarter of all patent infringement cases filed in the nation and is often referred to by various sources as the country's single "busiest patent judge." [1] [2]
Gilstrap was born in Pensacola,Florida. He is an Eagle Scout. He received a Bachelor of Arts from Baylor University in 1978,where he graduated magna cum laude. [3] As an undergraduate he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He also earned a Juris Doctor from Baylor Law School in 1981, [4] where he was associate editor of the Baylor Law Review. While on the review,he published the article Video Recorders:Copyright Infringement,33 Baylor Law Review 695 (1981). [5] Gilstrap later served as president of the Baylor Law Alumni Association. [3] [6]
After graduation from law school,Gilstrap entered private practice in the town of Marshall,Texas as an Associate with the firm of Abney,Baldwin &Searcy from 1981–1984. [7] [6] He later became a founding Partner of Smith &Gilstrap in Marshall from 1984–1989,where his practice covered oil and gas,real estate,probate law and occasionally patent cases. [7] [8] Among the patent cases Gilstrap worked on while at Smith &Gilstrap included defending Capital One Financial Corporation in a patent suit brought by LML Patent Corporation alleging patent infringement by several banks on patents covering payment services and the representation of a company called Bluestone Innovations Texas in a patent infringement suit brought against a number of foreign companies involving Light-emitting diodes (or LED) technology. [9] Gilstrap served as a Harrison County Judge from 1989 to 2002. [10] Gilstrap also served 16 years on the Courthouse Preservation Council in Marshall,and also served as the Chair of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee with the State Bar of Texas. [10] In 2004,Gilstrap co-authored an article with Leland de la Garza which appeared in the Texas Bar Journal:UPL:Unlicensed,Unwanted and Unwelcome 67 Texas Bar Journal 798 (2004). While and after serving as a Harrison County Judge,Gilstrap was practicing at Smith &Gilstrap until he became appointed to the federal bench in 2011. [6]
On May 19,2011,President Barack Obama nominated Gilstrap to a seat on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. [4] "Throughout their careers,these nominees have displayed unwavering commitment to justice and integrity," stated President Obama in a press release about Gilstrap's nomination,"[t]heir records of public service are distinguished and impressive and I am confident that they will serve the American people well from the United States District Court bench. I am honored to nominate them today." [7] [11] Gilstrap was rated as Unanimously Qualified by the American Bar Association and had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 28,2011. [12] On September 15,2011,the Senate Judiciary Committee reported his nomination to the Senate floor by voice vote. The Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote on December 5,2011. [13] He received his commission on December 6,2011. [6] He became the Chief Judge on March 1,2018,after Ron Clark assumed senior status. [14]
According to Lex Machina and other sources,Gilstrap is the United States District Judge that hears the most patent cases in the country and has been referred to by many sources as the nation's single "busiest patent judge". [1] [2] In 2016,for example,1,119 cases were brought before Gilstrap,who saw more new cases than the next 10 highest ranking judges –2016 was also the fourth year in a row where Gilstrap had more patent cases than any other federal judge. [15] In 2015,over 28% of the nation's patent cases were filed before him. [1] Gilstrap and United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne,who are the only two judges based out of the Marshall division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,also have the most patent cases filed before them out of the predominant share of the nation's patent cases that are filed in the Eastern District of Texas. [1] [16] [17] [18]
From 2014 to 2015,Gilstrap was ranked first amongst all federal judges (either United States District Judge or United States Magistrate Judge) with the most patent cases filed before him. [19] According to Docket Navigator,in 2015 Gilstrap was also ranked first as to the single federal judge having to preside over the highest number of filed cases,the highest number of litigants,and the highest number of accusations. [20] Also according to Docket Navigator,Gilstrap is the top ranked (#1) most active federal judge (either District or Magistrate judge) by number of parties,number of orders and by number of cases from the years of 2014 to 2008 (even though he came on the bench in 2011) for patent litigation. [21]
In 2013,Gilstrap presided over the case of TQP Development v. Newegg where the jury ordered Newegg to pay $2.3 million for infringing four asserted claims in a patent involving modem technologies and Internet security systems such as SSL or TLS together with the RC4 Cipher. [22] However in 2015,Gilstrap ruled that Newegg did not infringe TQP Development's patent,effectively overturning the verdict. [23]
In 2015,Gilstrap ruled that a $533 million jury verdict (the largest ever for a patent assertion entity,Smartflash) in Smartflash,Inc. v. Apple be thrown out due to a faulty jury instruction,and ordered a new trial solely on the issue of damages. [24]
Also in 2015,Gilstrap denied a request by ZTE Corporation for a new trial after a jury found that it infringed two patents owned by DataQuill covering data entry technology and awarded DataQuill $31.5 million. [25]
In 2015,Gilstrap ordered 35 U.S.C. 285 "exceptional case" fees to be levied against a notorious non-practicing entity (the worst of them known as patent trolls),eDekka LLC. [26] He ruled that the case was "objectively unreasonable" after previously invalidating eDekka's patent under the U.S. Supreme Court case of Alice v. CLS Bank International . [26] [27]
In 2016,Gilstrap enhanced damages based on a jury verdict that LG willfully infringed two standard essential patents (SEPs) owned by Core Wireless covering cellular standards. [28] He previously denied LG's motion for summary judgement that the SEPs were not willfully infringed,letting that issue go to the jury. [29]
In 2017,Gilstrap levied sanctions against patent assertion entity Iris Connex,which had a patent covering phone technology used to take "selfies". [30] In his order,Gilstrap mentioned that due to the misconduct of the parties,this was "the clearest example of an exceptional case to yet come before" him. [31]
In June 2017,Gilstrap provided a four-part test in determining venue after the U.S. Supreme Court case of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC in the case of Raytheon v. Cray, [32] but in September 2017 was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to a petition for writ of mandamus by Cray. [33] [34] However,the appellate decision commended Gilstrap's decision as thorough,and adopted several of its arguments as instructive for future cases. [33]
In September 2019,Gilstrap presided over the first trial on patent-eligible subject matter in the history of the United States. [35] Gilstrap previously denied a motion for summary judgment that the asserted patents—banking patents directed to the electronic transmission of check images—were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. PPS Data,LLC v. Jack Henry &Assocs.,Inc.,404 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (E.D. Tex. 2019). In denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment,Gilstrap set forth a novel burden-shifting framework for determining claim representativeness in the context of invalidity defenses. Because each claim is presumed independently valid,Gilstrap held that the defendant must demonstrate "that there are no legally relevant distinctions between the claim identified as representative and the remaining asserted claims." Id. at 1030–31 (citing Solutran,Inc. v. Elavon,Inc.,931 F.3d 1161,1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Gilstrap's representativeness framework was received positively by commentators,and has been adopted by other judges in the Eastern District of Texas as well as judges in the District of Delaware. See NICE Ltd. v. CallMiner,Inc.,Case No. 1:18-cv-02024-RGA-SFA (D. Del. February 3,2020). Following the denial of the motion for summary judgment and a week-long trial,the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patent was invalid for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. [36]
In February 2020,Gilstrap determined that tobacco manufacturer R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company must continue making its full portion of an $8 billion dollar annual payment to the State of Texas pursuant to a 1998 Settlement Agreement. [37] In 1996,Texas brought historic litigation against all major tobacco manufacturers,including Reynolds,asserting that their products injured both Texas citizens and Texas itself,which had to expend money on healthcare for citizens who suffer from tobacco-related illnesses. [38]
On the eve of trial in 1998,in exchange for a perpetual release of liability for all claims,Reynolds promised to make an annual payment in perpetuity to compensate Texas for its healthcare costs. However,in 2015,Reynolds sold off several major brands which were subject to the 1998 Settlement Agreement and argued that its sale of the brands extinguished its liability under the settlement. The purchaser of the brands,Imperial Tobacco Group LLC,also denied that it was liable for payments on the brands. Texas argued that a party cannot unilaterally extinguish its contract obligations via an assignment of the contract's subject matter—otherwise,reimbursement for the billions of cigarettes sold every year under the brands would "go up in smoke," to the detriment of the Texas citizenry.
Gilstrap agreed with Texas,and held that Reynolds remained liable for its full portion of the $8 billion dollar annual payment to Texas. "Reynolds accepted a perpetual release in return for agreeing to make perpetual payments. Nothing that has intervened since then has lessened that obligation. Reynolds remains as liable today as it was when it entered into the Texas Settlement in 1998." Texas v. American Tobacco Co.,Case No. 5:96-cv-91-JRG (E.D. Tex. February 25,2020). Reynolds initially appealed Gilstrap's decision,but subsequently dismissed its appeal.
In 2019 and 2020,Gilstrap spearheaded efforts to create a specialty certification for patent litigation with the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA),the organization managing board certification for U.S. trial lawyers in civil and criminal law nationwide. [39] NBTA announced a patent litigation certification would be administered by its newly-created subdivision,the National Board of Patent Litigation Lawyers (NBPLL),and named Gilstrap the founding president of the NBPLL. Alongside Gilstrap,the NBPLL will be led by patent law luminaries that include Morgan Chu,John Desmarais,William F. Lee,Matthew Powers,the Hon. Sue Lewis Robinson,and Theodore Stevenson III.
An October 2021 report on the judiciary recognized Gilstrap as the top district court judge as measured by the expeditious and safe handling of civil litigation during the COVID-19 pandemic. [40] The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that trials be conducted to "secure the just,speedy,and inexpensive determination of every action." Of the 18 patent jury trials that took place in the Eastern District of Texas from August 2020 to September 2021,Gilstrap handled 16 of those trials without a single incident of illness,resulting from extensive safety precautions taken by the Court. [40] As a result,Gilstrap was able to continue moving civil litigation forward without risks to the health and safety of the litigants.
October 2021 reporting by The Wall Street Journal revealed that since 2011,Gilstrap had presided over 138 cases in which a familial financial conflicts of interest allegedly required his recusal. [41] The paper's investigation revealed he held the national record for number of cases in which a federal judge did not recuse himself owing to an alleged familial financial conflict of interest. [42] However,the investigation also noted that Gilstrap had not taken any action (and certainly not any biased action) because virtually all of the cases at issue settled by agreement of the parties,prior to the defendant filing an answer and prior to the Court making any ruling on the merits. [43] Notably,Gilstrap did not have a direct financial conflict in any of the cases—instead,the alleged conflict stemmed from the fact that Gilstrap's spouse was the beneficiary of a third-party trust which neither Gilstrap nor his spouse controlled,which had invested in portfolios that included certain stocks. [43] For the avoidance of even any appearance of a conflict,the trust promptly divested the stocks at issue immediately after the alleged conflicts came to light. [43] The paper's investigation does not identify any conflict following the divestiture. [43]
In international law and business,patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art,often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However,some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.
Markman v. Westview Instruments,Inc.,517 U.S. 370 (1996),is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge,and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a federal court in the Fifth Circuit.
Baylor Law School is the oldest law school in Texas. Baylor Law School is affiliated with Baylor University and located in Waco,Texas. The school has been accredited by the American Bar Association since 1931 and has been a member of the Association of American Law Schools since 1938. The program offers training in all facets of law,including theoretical analysis,practical application,legal writing,advocacy,professional responsibility,and negotiation and counseling skills. Baylor Law School has been nationally ranked a "top-tier" law school by various publications in recent years.
Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.,also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc.,was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009,and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.
T. John Ward is a retired United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is best known for the large number of patent infringement cases brought before his court in Marshall,Texas.
William F. Lee is an American intellectual property and commercial litigation trial attorney. As co-managing partner of WilmerHale,Lee was the first Asian-American to lead a major American law firm. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation,the governing board of Harvard University.
Duane Morris LLP is a law firm headquartered in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. Founded in 1904 as Duane,Morris,Heckscher &Roberts,the firm has offices in the United States,London,Singapore,Vietnam,Oman,Myanmar,Shanghai and Taiwan. In addition to legal services,Duane Morris has independent affiliates employing approximately 100 professionals engaged in other disciplines.
William Mark Lanier is an American trial lawyer and founder and CEO of the Lanier Law Firm. He has led a number of high profile product litigation suits resulting in billions of dollars in damages,including Johnson &Johnson baby powder and Merck &Co.'s Vioxx drug.
Leonard E. Davis is a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
McKool Smith is a U.S. trial firm with more than 130 trial lawyers across seven offices in Austin,Dallas,Houston,Los Angeles,Marshall,New York City,and Washington,DC. The firm represents clients in disputes involving complex commercial litigation,intellectual property (IP),bankruptcy,and white collar defense matters.
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011,which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement,wording of injunctions,infringing product redesign,contempt of court orders,and contempt sanctions. Ultimately,the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further,the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co.,Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers;between them,the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011,Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits,while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars":extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011,Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries;by October,the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012,the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe,with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S.,Samsung won rulings in South Korea,Japan,and the UK. On June 4,2013,Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent,but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
Thomas M. Melsheimer is a trial lawyer and a partner at the international law firm of Winston &Strawn,where he also serves as managing partner of its Dallas office and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. His trial experience encompasses both civil and criminal litigation. On the civil side,he has tried to verdict cases involving patent infringement,trade secrets,insider trading,antitrust,breach of fiduciary duty,fraud,product liability,and False Claims Act (FCA) violations. On the criminal side,he has tried to verdict cases involving bank fraud,public corruption,copyright infringement,aggravated sexual assault,and kidnapping. His clients include a variety of high-net-worth individuals and notable corporations,including the Dallas Mavericks and owner Mark Cuban,Microsoft,Bank of America,and Texas Instruments. Melsheimer is the co-author of a best-selling book on trial advocacy,On the Jury Trial:Principles and Practices for Effective Advocacy which was called a “book every lawyer should read,”by legendary trial lawyer Michael S. Tigar.
Robert William (Trey) Schroeder III is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy,advertising,intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business,and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.
Roy Steven Payne is currently a U.S. Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He previously served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana from 1987 to 2005.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,581 U.S. ___ (2017),was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.
Ada Elene Brown is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She is a former trial judge of the Dallas County courts and a former Justice of the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas. She is the first African-American woman federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate. A citizen of the Choctaw Nation,Brown is also one of four Native American federal judges who are actively serving on the federal bench.
Commil USA,LLC v. Cisco Systems,Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015),was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for induced patent infringement. Writing for a 6-2 majority,Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point,arguing that,in his view,a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.