James Rodney Gilstrap

How Judge Gilstrap rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
December 6, 2011
ABA rating
Unanimously Qualified
Education
Baylor University (B.A., 1978, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa); Baylor University School of Law (J.D., 1981)
Signed orders read
28

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.

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

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.

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”

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202510
Mar 202500
Sep 202400
Mar 202400
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202200
Mar 202200
Sep 202100
Mar 202102
Sep 202000

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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2,8547.3 months
Closed with no court action1,2225.3 months
Closed before pretrial1,5819 months
Closed during or after pretrial1526 months
Closed during trial3624.2 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252,8547.3 months
Sep 20242,3457.5 months
Sep 20232,0038.4 months
Sep 20221,9688.8 months
Sep 20212,1228.1 months
Sep 20201,9568.9 months
Sep 20191,9728.6 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