James F. Holderman
How Judge Holderman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A patent/IP specialist (co-author of the Federal Judicial Center's Patent Case Management Judicial Guide): he will resolve a patent case on a defendant's summary judgment of invalidity, finding asserted claims anticipated or obvious, which then moots the patentee's own infringement motion. Lead with validity.
“For the reasons set forth above, Tellabs' "Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163" (Dkt. No. 390-1) is granted in its entirety.”
Procedural preferences
He polices subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and strictly: a third-party complaint that does not establish an independent jurisdictional basis is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than entertained on the merits.
“the Touhy firm's Third-Party Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cautions
Reconsideration of a summary-judgment ruling is hard to obtain before him -- a losing party's motion to reconsider an SJ of non-infringement was denied. Make the record the first time.
“plaintiffs' "Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Nike's Motion for Summary judgment of Non-infringement of claim 1 of the '346 Patent Under the Doctrine of Equivalents" [350] is denied.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 3Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Bill of costs N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for protective order N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant New Age Transportation, Distribution and Warehousing, Inc. Judgment is ordered entered. The case is terminated in its entirety.”
“For the reasons stated above, Third-Party Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay" (Dkt. No. 87) is granted and the Touhy firm's Third-Party Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Third-Party Defendants' "Motion for Protective Order" (Dkt. No. 92) is denied as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, OSFM and Foreman's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants, Office of the State Fire Marshal and David Foreman, individually, and in his capacity as Illinois State Fire Marshal. This case is terminated.”
“Consequently, for the reasons stated above, Wexford's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-part.”
“McCann's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-full, and the claims against McCann are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons explained in the Statement section of this order, plaintiffs' "Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Nike's Motion for Summary judgment of Non-infringement of claim 1 of the '346 Patent Under the Doctrine of Equivalents" [350] is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff Fox's bill of costs (Dkt. No. 451) and fee petition (Dkt. No. 534) are granted.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff Fox's bill of costs (Dkt. No. 451) and fee petition (Dkt. No. 534) are granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Tellabs' "Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163" (Dkt. No. 390-1) is granted in its entirety.”
“Fujitsu Limited's "Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163" (Dkt. No. 606) is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 57 days (N = 5).
Former CHIEF JUDGE (2006-2013) of N.D. Ill.; Reagan appointee, IP/patent-heavy docket; presided over parts of the United States v. Blagojevich corruption case (authorized release of the Blagojevich wiretap recordings) and the Ligas v. Maram disability-rights class action (decertified the class). 2009-2013 docket is a mix of employment (Title VII civil-rights jobs), prisoner Section 1983, ERISA fund-collection, consumer-statute (FDCPA/890), and patent matters.