David Folsom
Judge Folsom no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Folsom decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He evaluated transfer at the party level when convenience considerations differed among defendants.
“Because the Court finds transfer would be extremely inconvenient for and unfair to the newly-added Texas defendants, the Motion is DENIED-IN-PART with respect to these defendants.”
He required a contractual basis before compelling a nonparty patent owner to arbitrate.
“Because the Court finds that Plaintiff is not a party that may be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the PLA, Defendants’ motion should be DENIED.”
He declined to resolve a fact-dependent laches defense before trial when the parties disputed when the patent owner learned of the alleged infringement.
“The parties dispute at what point in time the patent owner knew or should have known of Defendant’s allegedly infringing activity.”
Cautions
He imposed substantial sanctions when counsel deliberately withheld a document central to both discovery and a dispositive motion.
“The Court finds that Defendants withheld timely production of the Employment Agreement through a deliberate, willful failure to disclose, thereby consciously disregarding Plaintiffs rights.”
He enforced workers' compensation exclusivity at the pleading stage when the defendant qualified as the plaintiffs' statutory employer.
“Because Plaintiffs claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provision under the Act, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
He treated continued infringement after judgment as supporting permanent injunctive relief, while separately testing the equities and public interest.
“The public has an interest in maintaining a strong patent system. This interest is served by enforcing an adequate remedy for patent infringement-in this case, a permanent injunction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 60) is hereby DENIED.”
“In addition, Defendant Trimeris alternative Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 61) is likewise DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 8) is also hereby DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds EchoStar in contempt of its permanent injunction.”
“For these reasons, Defendants’ motions (Dkt. Nos. 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, and 232) shall be DENIED-IN-PART with respect to the RICO and Negligence claims and GRANTED-IN-PART with respect to the OCSLA claim.”
“Stolt’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 226) shall be GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Joseph Gemini (Dkt. No. 98) is hereby GRANTED IN PART as to consent decrees, settlements, and licenses made under the threat of litigation, and this motion is otherwise DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of N. Elton Dry (Dkt. No. 96), Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of N. Elton Dry (Dkt. No. 123), and Defendant’s Supplemental Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinion of Joseph Gemini (Dkt. No. 124) are hereby DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the United States’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. Defendant is hereby DISMISSED from the above-captioned case.”
“For all the above reasons, Plaintiff TiVo’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Dkt. No. 733, is hereby GRANTED and Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Stay Any Injunction Pending Appeal, Dkt. No. 737, is hereby DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant Patriot Communications LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Dkt. No. 171) is hereby DENIED.”
“The Renewed Joinder and Motion of Viewpointe for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Dkt. No. 2124) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Judicial Estop-pel and Standing (Dkt. No. 71).”
“Because the California Defendants have shown that the Northern District of California would be clearly more convenient than this district, the California Defendants’ Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 168) is hereby GRANTED-IN-PART with respect to the original Defendants and the California Defendants added in Balthasar’s First Amended Complaint.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Dkt. No. 71) is hereby GRANTED. The Court enters a Judgement of Dismissal contemporaneously herewith.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Impose Sanctions on Defendants and their Counsel for Improperly Offering Financial Incentives in Exchange for Testimony (Dkt. No. 73) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AS MODIFIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 302 days (N = 18).
The bounded January 2005 enumeration contains eighteen terminated cases. It is a narrow archival slice, not a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Folsom no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.