James Rodney Gilstrap

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 12 signed orders read

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.

Motions to dismiss
N = 6
Granted in part: 1Denied: 3Moot / procedural: 2 counts only
Motion for judgment as a matter of law
N = 3
Denied: 3 counts only
Motion for exceptional case
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for reconsideration
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to dismiss or transfer
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for leave to amend
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Summary judgment
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for enhanced damages
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for ongoing royalty
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion for interest and costs
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion for new trial
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.

Effective Exploration, LLC v. Bluestone Natural Resources II, LLC
2:16-cv-00607-JRG-RSP
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 35) and Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) are hereby DENIED.”

Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' ... Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) are hereby DENIED.”

Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
2:24-cv-00886-JRG-RSP
Motion to dismiss or transfer (defendant) Denied

“the Court OVERRULES Comcast's Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED.”

G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
2:22-cv-00078-JRG
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, G+'s Motion is DENIED.”

Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Oura Health Oy)
2:24-cv-01070-JRG-RSP
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 83) be GRANTED as to improper joinder; the Motion is otherwise DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be DENIED AS MOOT”

Mojo Mobility, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
2:22-cv-00398-JRG-RSP
Motion for leave to amend (defendant) Granted

“the Court concludes that Samsung has shown good cause to amend its invalidity contentions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Samsung's Motion.”

U.S. Silica Company v. Amberger Kaolinwerke Eduard Kick GmbH & Co. KG
2:20-cv-00298-JRG
Motion for judgment as a matter of law (defendant) Denied

“AKW's Invalidity JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 280), Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283), and Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are DENIED.”

Motion for judgment as a matter of law (defendant) Denied

“Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283) ... are DENIED.”

Motion for judgment as a matter of law (defendant) Denied

“Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are DENIED.”

Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB
2:19-cv-00396-JRG
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 37) filed by Defendants Code200, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendants Oxysales, UAB and Metacluster LT, UAB's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15) and Code200, UAB's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 27), which are DENIED AS MOOT in light of the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 26).”

United Services Automobile Association v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2:18-cv-00245-JRG
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Court determines that the Asserted Claims are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. 101 (Dkt. No. 131) is DENIED.”

Saint Lawrence Communications LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC
2:15-cv-00351-JRG
Motion for enhanced damages (plaintiff) Denied

“SLC's Motion for Enhanced Damages (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED”

Motion for ongoing royalty (plaintiff) Granted in part

“SLC's Motion for Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 78) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”

Motion for interest and costs (plaintiff) Granted in part

“SLC's Motion for Prejudgment Interest, Postjudgment Interest, Taxable Costs, and Supplemental Damages (Dkt. No. 77) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
2:21-cv-00113-JRG
Motion for exceptional case (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court concludes that this case is not exceptional under 285, and KPN is not entitled to its attorneys' fees. It follows, therefore, that KPN's request for expert fees fails as well. ... the Motion (Dkt. No. 276) is DENIED.”

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
2:21-cv-00316-JRG
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“the Motion (Dkt. No. 297) should be and hereby is DENIED.”

WPEM, LLC v. SOTI Inc.
2:18-cv-00156-JRG
Motion for exceptional case (defendant) Granted

“SOTI's Motion to Recover Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED. The Court awards SOTI attorneys' fees in the total amount of $179,622.00”