The Federal Circuit is currently being petitioned to address concerns that U.S. District Judges Rodney Gilstrap and Alan Albright have been disregarding established patent venue laws by retaining infringement cases within their jurisdictions, even when minimal activities related to the patented methods occurred there. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/articles/2402657?utm_source=openai))
Historically, the Eastern District of Texas, under Judge Gilstrap, and the Western District of Texas, under Judge Albright, have been prominent venues for patent litigation. Judge Gilstrap’s Marshall Division has been a favored destination for patent litigants for nearly two decades, with 90% of civil cases filed there assigned to him. Similarly, Judge Albright’s Waco Division saw a surge in patent filings, with nearly 1,000 cases in 2021, accounting for 95% of the district’s patent cases. ([sternekessler.com](https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/publications/judge-shopping-policy-revisal-may-make-issue-worse/?utm_source=openai))
However, both judges have faced criticism for their handling of venue transfer motions. In 2017, Judge Gilstrap’s four-factor test for determining a “regular and established place of business” was overturned by the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc., which emphasized the necessity of a physical presence in the district. ([natlawreview.com](https://natlawreview.com/article/federal-circuit-rejects-eastern-district-texas-venue-test?utm_source=openai)) Similarly, Judge Albright’s reluctance to grant transfer motions led to multiple Federal Circuit reversals, culminating in a 2022 order by Chief Judge Orlando Garcia that ended the automatic assignment of patent cases to him in the Waco Division. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Albright?utm_source=openai))
These developments have sparked debates over judicial practices and the interpretation of venue laws, highlighting the ongoing tension between district court judges and the Federal Circuit regarding the appropriate handling of patent cases.