There is currently a bill working its way through Congress to establish a pilot program among district courts, aimed at the better treatment of patent cases. One purpose or objective is to create “rocket dockets” in those districts with a high volume of intellectual property and patent cases. Another purpose of the program is to establish a sort of “IP certified” judicial roster, under the theory that there are a sufficient number of technologically-savvy judges out there to refer these cases to under circumstances where assignment is warranted.
Patent litigators in Texas have likely become accustomed to, and spoiled by, the sua sponte innovation assumed by the Eastern District, which is considered the second most efficient patent and intellectual property “rocket docket” in the nation. Third in the race to adopt specialized local “patent rules,” the Eastern District drafted its patent mandates in accordance with the first in judicial patent legislating, the Eastern District of Virginia. It interprets those rules however in keeping with the current developer of the intellectual property landscape, the Northern District of California, and in doing so, has remained nationally and locally relevant and respected.
Our Eastern District judiciary, not unaware of the national recognition and sudden press, has risen to the challenge by outfitting the sleepy Marshall town courtrooms with the latest in technology, so that those visiting to litigate their billion dollar patent matters are unable to note any offering provided elsewhere that cannot be found there. Moreover, the intellectual ability of our Eastern District judges to digest the tech-laden presentations that big city firms bring to bear upon those courtrooms is nothing less than impressive.
The question then must be, how many rocket dockets and intellectual-property certified judicial rosters is a state entitled to have? The rumor is that our Northern District has applied and is lobbying heavily for inclusion in the new Pilot Program. Should they win their campaign, Texas will soon be on every intellectual property litigation firm’s radar. An irony that should not go unappreciated. And a down-home advantage that cannot go unnoticed. For the few firms, such as this one, truly skilled in the intellectual property and patent litigation arena, that is good news. Large clients and large firms, however, should be wary. With issues of forum selection dominating the IP litigation field, a friend in the courtroom is imperative. It’s the reason that most lawyers serious in the intellectual property practice have moved to boutiques, so they can specialize, and so that the jury perceives them less as the big firm enemy with their big corporate client. With intellectual property litigation moving towards rocket dockets in down home towns like Marshall and down home states like Texas, that seemingly irrelevant consideration could now be more relevant than ever.