Alan D Albright
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: 1Granted in part: 2Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motion to transfer venue N = 5 |
Granted: 3Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to stay N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment as matter of law N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for new trial N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Bill of costs N = 1 |
Granted in part: 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.
“because the Court finds that Microsoft has not demonstrated that the Austin Division is a clearly more convenient venue than the Waco Division, the Court DENIES Microsoft's Motion to Transfer.”
“Uber has met its burden to show that the NDCA is clearly more convenient than the WDTX. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California is GRANTED.”
“The indirect and willful infringement claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Arigna is allowed to conduct discovery on the indirect and willfulness claims and amend its Complaint and re-plead its best case of indirect and willful infringement up to three months into discovery.”
“Apple's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 27. AK Meeting's claims of infringement with respect to the '211 Patent are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court finds that Labcorp has not established that '(1) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, (2) the amount of damages awarded is excessive, or (3) the trial was unfair or marred by prejudicial error.' ... The Court therefore DENIES Labcorp's Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.”
“Based on the foregoing, VLSI is not entitled to pre-suit damages for the '187 and '522 patents due to the lack of marking and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“Defendants have not met the burden of showing that this case would be clearly more convenient in the NDCA. ... Verizon's Motion to Transfer is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is hereby GRANTED. ECF No. 42. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for all further proceedings.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED. The Court's Clerk is directed to transfer the above-captioned matter to the Northern District of California.”
“the Court finds that Intel's Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-AS-MOOT-IN-PART without prejudice. The Court GRANTS Intel's Motion to the extent it moves to dismiss HDC's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but does so without prejudice. ... It is therefore ORDERED that all claims in the above-captioned matter are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to dismiss.”
“because the Federal Circuit appeal is unlikely to simplify the issues in this case, the Court finds that this factor weighs against granting the stay. ... Because two of the factors weigh against granting a stay, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Single-active-district-judge Waco Division -> a patent-saturated docket. At peak ~20-25% of ALL U.S. patent cases were assigned to him; the 2022-07-25 Garcia docket-equalization order randomized newly-filed Waco patent cases among 12 judges, so his NEW patent intake fell sharply after mid-2022 (older mega-dockets like Ravgen still ran for years). Caseload illustrative from the enumeration, not an FJC IDB census.