increased funding in order for judges to hire additional law clerks with technical training as well as to increase training for judges participating in the program. Participants in the program remain generalist judges; they are free to take on cases of other subject matters as their schedule allows. The program is designed to last for ten years and requires that periodic reports be made to Congress. The bill was widely popular and supported by a vast array of industry groups as well as the patent bar. It passed the House several times with unanimous bipartisan support rarity in the —a current political climate. The program went into operation in mid-2011. Figure 1 below details the district courts participating in the pilot program and Table 1 displays the number of judges participating in each of the pilot districts. Figure 1: Pilot v. Non Pilot Districts Table 1: Pilot Program Patent Cases and Judgeships District Filed from Pilot Program Percent of Sept 2011 Judgeships District’s Judges Northern District of 1,001 5 District Judges, 7 24% California Magistrate Southern District of 432 5 25% California Central District of 1,655 6 15% California District of Nevada 114 4 30% Eastern District of 6,478 6 50% Texas Northern District of 323 3 21% Texas
increased funding in order for judges to hire additional law clerks with technical training as well as to increase training for judges participating in the program. Participants in the program remain generalist judges; they are free to take on cases of other subject matters as their schedule allows. The program is designed to last for ten years and requires that periodic reports be made to Congress. The bill was widely popular and supported by a vast array of industry groups as well as the patent bar. It passed the House several times with unanimous bipartisan support —a rarity in the current political climate. The program went into operation in mid-2011. Figure 1 below details the district courts participating in the pilot program and Table 1 displays the number of judges participating in each of the pilot districts. Figure 1: Pilot v. Non Pilot Districts Table 1: Pilot Program Patent Cases and Judgeships District Filed from Sept 2011 Pilot Program Judgeships Percent of District’s Judges Northern District of California 1,001 5 District Judges, 7 Magistrate 24% Southern District of California 432 5 25% Central District of California 1,655 6 15% District of Nevada 114 4 30% Eastern District of Texas 6,478 6 50% Northern District of Texas 323 3 21%
semet_patent_paper.docx