James Rodney Gilstrap
How Judge Gilstrap rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gilstrap
James Rodney Gilstrap is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Gilstrap received a commission on December 6, 2011.
Judge Gilstrap's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gilstrap, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Standing Order Regarding Motions Under 35USC101 and Accompanying Certifications ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Meet and Confer Obligations Relating to Discovery Disputes ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Page Limits for Motions to Strike ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Consolidated Cases ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Readiness for Scheduling Conference ↗
- Exemption Order Regarding Courtesy Paper Copies of Electronically-Filed Documents ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Bill of Costs ↗
- Standing Order Regarding the Use of Live Testimony During Claim Construction Proceedings ↗
- Standing Order Requiring Notice of Relevant Determinations from Related Proceedings ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Dismissal Papers in Connection with Settlement ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Mock Juries for Cases ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Protection of Proprietary and/or Confidential Information to Be Presented to the Court During Motion an ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Research as to Potential Jurors ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Participation of Local Counsel in Mediation Efforts ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in Advance of Voir Dire ↗
- Amended Standing Order on Number and Use of Exhibits ↗
- Second Amended Patent Standing Order on Motions in Limine ↗
- First Amended Non-Patent Standing Order on Motions in Limine ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Number of Motions to Strike ↗
- Protective Order - Patent ↗
- Docket Control Order - Patent ↗
- Discovery Order - Patent ↗
- Protective Order ↗
- Discovery Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Send Gilstrap paper courtesy copies only when he specifically requests them.
“courtesy paper copies shall only be filed when specifically requested by the undersigned.”
Filing
After settlement in principle, jointly file a motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement.
“promptly upon the settlement in principle of any case pending before this Court, whether such settlement is reached by formal mediation, privately between the parties or otherwise, the parties shall jointly file a motion with the Court styled as follows: Joint Motion To Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement.”
Filing
Within three days of learning of a materially relevant determination in a related proceeding, file formal notice identifying the related motion.
“once a party in a case presently before this Court becomes aware of a determination elsewhere from a related proceeding by an adjudicating body that the party reasonably believes is materially relevant to a pending motion before this Court, that party shall promptly provide notice of such relevant determination and identification of the related motion(s) by filing a formal notice with the Court within three (3) days.”
Filing
Use one of Gilstrap’s specified Rule 41 dismissal papers after settlement; a bare notice is insufficient.
“the parties shall file such dismissal papers styled as one of the following: 1) a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), with an accompanying proposed Order; or 2) a Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), signed by all parties who have appeared; or 3) a Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)¸ in which the plaintiff affirmatively represents that the defendant has not served upon the plaintiff either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Such parties shall not, under any circumstances, file their attempt at dismissal styled merely as a ‘Notice.’”
Filing
In patent cases, serve eligibility contentions within 45 days after receiving asserted-claim and infringement contentions.
“No later than 45 days after receiving service of the ‘Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,’ each party alleging that any asserted claim does not qualify as patent- eligible subject matter (‘Challenged Claim’) shall serve on all parties its ‘Eligibility Contentions,’”
Motions
A pre-Markman dispositive motion under § 101 must include the signed claim construction certification.
“parties seeking to file pre-Markman hearing dispositive motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (that is: prior to entry of the Court’s claim construction order) shall include, as a part of such motions, the following certification, completed and signed as follows and as may be appropriate in such case:”
Motions
A motion to strike and its response may each have no more than 12 pages without leave; a reply or surreply may have five.
“A Motion to Strike shall not exceed twelve pages, excluding attachments, unless leave of court is first obtained. Likewise, responses to such motions shall not exceed twelve pages, excluding attachments, unless leave of court is obtained first. Any reply or sur-reply brief to a Motion to Strike shall not exceed five pages, excluding attachments.”
Motions
File at most one motion to strike per expert witness unless the court grants leave.
“a party may only file one (1) Motion to Strike per expert witness, notwithstanding the number of reports the expert witness may generate and serve.”
Discovery
Within 72 hours after a discovery motion is set for hearing, lead and local counsel must confer in person or by phone.
“Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each party's lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other attorneys, . in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.”
Conferences
File a readiness notice within five days after the last defendant answers or moves to transfer or dismiss.
“The notice shall be filed within five days of the last remaining Defendant’s answer or motion.”
Trial
For a consolidated case going to trial, attach to the joint pretrial order a list of lead-case docket entries relevant to that member case.
“the Parties shall file an exhibit to their Joint Pretrial Order setting forth a list identifying all docket entries from the lead case that relate to the specific member case which is proceeding to trial.”
Trial
Seek leave before calling a live witness at a claim construction hearing.
“without prior leave of this Court permitting a party to call witnesses as a part of any claim construction hearing (in person or by deposition), such live testimony will not be permitted at claim construction hearings before this Court.”
Trial
In patent cases, each side may propose and argue no more than five of its own motions in limine at the pretrial conference.
“each side 1 will be permitted to propose and argue up to, but not more than, five (5) of each side’s own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference.”
Trial
In non-patent civil cases, each side may propose and argue no more than five of its own motions in limine at the pretrial conference.
“each side 1 will be permitted to propose and argue (if opposed) 2 up to, but not more than, five (5) of each sides’ own motions in limine at the Pretrial Conference.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Gilstrap decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In LED Wafer, Gilstrap rejected claim splitting because the earlier action was no longer pending and involved patent claims canceled and replaced through reexamination.
“In this instance, though, the prior action is no longer pending—and was based on the now-canceled previous claims of the ’405 and ’822 patents, which the Federal Circuit has clearly established became moot when those claims were canceled.”
Gilstrap denied summary judgment against declaratory judgment claims despite a challenge to monetary damages, reasoning that declaratory relief can stand without such damages.
“Declaratory judgment itself ‘is a proper remedy’ such that Plaintiffs need not establish monetary damages.”
Cautions
In a patent damages dispute, Gilstrap rejected a marking-based summary judgment motion when the remaining asserted patent claims were methods to which the statutory notice rule did not apply.
“the Court finds that 35 U.S.C. § 287 is inapplicable. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.”
In a patent infringement case, Gilstrap denied the patentees’ summary judgment motion because the challenged expert opinions remained and a material fact dispute persisted.
“Since Dr. Villasenor’s challenged opinions remain intact, a genuine dispute of material fact remains. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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.”
“Defendants' ... Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) are hereby 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.”
“For the reasons stated herein, G+'s Motion is DENIED.”
“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 83) be GRANTED as to improper joinder; the Motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“Oura's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 68) be DENIED AS MOOT”
“the Court concludes that Samsung has shown good cause to amend its invalidity contentions. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Samsung's Motion.”
“AKW's Invalidity JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 280), Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283), and Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are DENIED.”
“Infringement JMOL Motion (Dkt. No. 283) ... are DENIED.”
“Damages JMOL Motion (Dkt No. 286) are 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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“SLC's Motion for Enhanced Damages (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED”
“SLC's Motion for Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 78) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”
“SLC's Motion for Prejudgment Interest, Postjudgment Interest, Taxable Costs, and Supplemental Damages (Dkt. No. 77) is GRANTED AS MODIFIED”
“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.”
“the Motion (Dkt. No. 297) should be and hereby is DENIED.”
“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”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, not for Judge Gilstrap: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,222 | 5.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,581 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 15 | 26 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,854 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,345 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,003 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,968 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,122 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,956 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,972 | 8.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Gilstrap with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gilstrap, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gilstrap's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace