Alan D Albright
How Judge Albright rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Albright no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Albright
Alan D Albright was a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Albright received a commission on September 10, 2018. Judge Albright resigned on August 31, 2026.
How Judge Albright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In LBT IP II v. Uber, he granted transfer to Northern California after finding that most witnesses and evidence were located there.
“The bulk of relevant witnesses and sources of proof reside in the NDCA.”
In a post-trial patent case, the court partly enhanced damages after finding egregious infringement, while limiting the enhancement to periods it considered culpable.
“The Court finds that this case is egregious and therefore enhancement is warranted here”
Procedural preferences
In Arigna Technologies v. Apple, he allowed three months of discovery and repleading of indirect and willful infringement allegations if supported by specific facts and Rule 11.
“Arigna has leave to re-plead those allegations with specificity if supported by a good faith basis under Rule 11 up to three months after fact discovery opens, and Arigna has leave to conduct fact discovery on indirect and willful infringement during those three months.”
Cautions
In WSOU Investments v. Microsoft, he denied transfer to the Austin Division because Microsoft had not shown it was clearly more convenient.
“the Court finds that Microsoft has not met its heavy burden to demonstrate that the Austin Division is ‘clearly more convenient.’”
In the same patent case, the court denied a permanent injunction because the plaintiffs did not link the claimed harm to the patented features strongly enough to establish irreparable injury.
“Plaintiffs have not established a causal nexus or, it follows, any irreparable injury justifying a permanent injunction.”
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.
As the single active district judge in the Waco Division, Judge Albright carried a docket heavily concentrated in patent cases. At the peak, approximately 20% to 25% of all U.S. patent cases were assigned to him. A July 25, 2022 docket-equalization order randomized new Waco patent filings among 12 judges, reducing his incoming patent caseload while older matters continued.
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 | 390 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 23 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 85 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 390 | 85 |
| Sep 2025 | 446 | 91 |
| Mar 2025 | 466 | 82 |
| Sep 2024 | 464 | 79 |
| Mar 2024 | 409 | 66 |
| Sep 2023 | 282 | 44 |
| Mar 2023 | 404 | 30 |
| Sep 2022 | 387 | 29 |
| Mar 2022 | 462 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 295 | 14 |
| Mar 2021 | 19 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 5 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Albright no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.