James Donald Peterson

United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin district Senior status Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 14 signed orders read

How Judge Peterson decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

His patent-litigation background shows in disciplined claim construction: he applies the Phillips hierarchy and grants summary judgment of non-infringement where the accused device lacks the asserted claim limitations, resolving the parties' cross-motions limitation by limitation.

“DZEM’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 98, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’153 patent. b. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 9–13 and 18 of the ’038 patent.”

Procedural preferences

At summary judgment he holds the non-movant to a 'put up or shut up' standard: speculation, unsworn filings, and argument in briefs do not create a triable issue, but where the record contains genuinely disputed facts (foreseeability, comparative negligence, excessive force) he denies the motion and sends them to the jury.

“IT IS ORDERED that Prime Communications’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.”

He resolves motions to dismiss claim by claim, granting in part and dismissing some claims with prejudice while letting others proceed, and dismisses improperly named parties (such as the State) from the case.

“The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65 and Dkt. 67, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Hamilton v. Prime Communications, L.P.
3:22-cv-00583 · 2024-02-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Prime Communications’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.”

Hereford v. Catholic Charities, Inc., Diocese of Madison
3:18-cv-01049 · 2020-05-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Catholic Charities, Inc., Diocese of Madison’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 27, is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, Dkt. 25, is DENIED as moot.”

Mezu-Ndubuisi v. Univ. of Wis.-Madison
3:24-cv-00031 · 2025-02-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65 and Dkt. 67, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Plaintiff’s other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Burgess v. Hoem
3:18-cv-00527 · 2019-08-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Dkt. 35, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Motion to recruit counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“Burgess’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 40, is DENIED.”

SSI Technologies, LLC v. Dongguan Zhengyang Electronic Mechanical LTD
3:20-cv-00019 · 2021-09-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“SSI’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 92, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. DZEM’s tortious-interference counterclaim is DISMISSED. The remainder of SSI’s motion is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“DZEM’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 98, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: a. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’153 patent. b. The DZEM sensor does not infringe claims 9–13 and 18 of the ’038 patent.”

Jennings v. State of Wisconsin
3:24-cv-00220 · 2025-01-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The state of Wisconsin’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 16, is GRANTED. The state is DISMISSED from the case.”

Judgment on pleadings (defendant) Granted

“The Dane County defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 25, is GRANTED. Defendants Dane County and Kalvin Barrett are DISMISSED from the case.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The village defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 21, is GRANTED in part; defendants Bierman, Schaub, and village of Oregon are DISMISSED from the case.”

Johnson v. American Family Insurance Company
3:22-cv-00214 · 2023-03-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 24, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Jannsen v. Caine Transfer Inc.
3:24-cv-00217-jdp · 2025-03-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Caine Transfer Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 6, is DENIED.”

Krantz v. Shutter Zone Media LLC
3:24-cv-00647-jdp · 2025-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Shutter Zone Media LLC’s motions to dismiss, Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 13, are DENIED.”

Eternix, Ltd. v. CivilGEO, Inc.
3:23-cv-00633-jdp · 2025-06-05
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff Eternix Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 100, is GRANTED in part for defendant CivilGEO as described in Dkt. 176.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“CivilGEO’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 95, is DENIED.”

Aubert v. Poast
3:24-cv-00926-jdp · 2025-09-18
Petition for return of child (petitioner) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Yves Aubert’s petition for return of his two minor children to Norway under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act is DENIED.”

Zameeruddin v. University of Wisconsin-Parkside
3:24-cv-00654-jdp · 2025-08-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 31, is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed assignments include patent, civil-rights, employment, contract, false-claims, habeas, and criminal matters. They illustrate the variety of Peterson's docket but do not constitute a complete census.

Put Judge Peterson's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Peterson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Peterson's own signed orders and cites them.