Eastern District of 6,478 6 50% Texas Northern District of 323 3 21% Texas Northern District of 799 13 30% Illinois Southern District of 543 10 18% New York Eastern District of 130 6 District Judges, 9 20% New York Magistrate Judges District of New Jersey 777 11 40% Western District of 66 6 38% Pennsylvania District of Maryland 102 3 14% Western District of 33 2 25% Tennessee Southern District of 622 3 13% Florida Patent Pilot Program 2016 Update The Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”) produced a report on the patent pilot program at the five-year mark in September 2016. They found that 24% of all active judgeships (a total of sixty-six judges) participated in the pilot program and that more than 76% of patent cases in the designated pilot districts were heard before a designated pilot judge. This figure varies among districts, ranging from a low of 14% in the District of Maryland to a high of 50% in the Eastern District of Texas. As a whole, pilot judges had more patent experience than non-pilot judges, with judges in the Eastern District of Texas having substantially more patent experience than other districts. Overall, the FJC concluded that pilot judges worked more expeditiously in terminating cases, with the differences in total duration time being statistically significant. Controlling for the number of transfers and the judge’s experience, the FJC found that pilot cases are disposed of 8% faster than non-pilot cases. The number of pilot patent varied by district, with pilot cases making up only 23% of the Northern District of California’s patent cases, while about 90% of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Tennessee and the Western District of Pennsylvania were part of the pilot. The FTC also found that the rate of appeal did not differ between pilot and non-pilot judges, and that most cases no matter who presided over them resulted in — — affirmances on appeal. The study also found a great deal of variation
Eastern District of Texas 6,478 6 50% Northern District of Texas 323 3 21% Northern District of Illinois 799 13 30% Southern District of New York 543 10 18% Eastern District of New York 130 6 District Judges, 9 Magistrate Judges 20% District of New Jersey 777 11 40% Western District of Pennsylvania 66 6 38% District of Maryland 102 3 14% Western District of Tennessee 33 2 25% Southern District of Florida 622 3 13% Patent Pilot Program 2016 Update The Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”) produced a report on the patent pilot program at the five-year mark in September 2016. They found that 24% of all active judgeships (a total of sixty-six judges) participated in the pilot program and that more than 76% of patent cases in the designated pilot districts were heard before a designated pilot judge. This figure varies among districts, ranging from a low of 14% in the District of Maryland to a high of 50% in the Eastern District of Texas. As a whole, pilot judges had more patent experience than non-pilot judges, with judges in the Eastern District of Texas having substantially more patent experience than other districts. Overall, the FJC concluded that pilot judges worked more expeditiously in terminating cases, with the differences in total duration time being statistically significant. Controlling for the number of transfers and the judge’s experience, the FJC found that pilot cases are disposed of 8% faster than non-pilot cases. The number of pilot patent varied by district, with pilot cases making up only 23% of the Northern District of California’s patent cases, while about 90% of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Tennessee and the Western District of Pennsylvania were part of the pilot. The FTC also found that the rate of appeal did not differ between pilot and non-pilot judges, and that most cases — no matter who presided over them — resulted in affirmances on appeal. The study also found a great deal of variation
semet_patent_online_appendix.docx