James Donald Peterson
How Judge Peterson rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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.”
An unopposed summary-judgment motion does not win automatically. He treats supported facts as undisputed but still draws reasonable inferences for the non-movant and independently decides whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Maholmes did not oppose the motions. Under those circumstances, I treat defendants’ version of the facts as undisputed, but I must still draw all reasonable inferences in Maholmes’s favor and decide whether defendants have shown that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
When medical discovery is necessary, he expects proportional disclosure and concrete confidentiality protections rather than an overbroad authorization. He may deny dismissal, require narrower categories, and direct the parties to propose a protective order.
“Ammerman raises legitimate objections to the scope of records sought to be released and the ambiguous language in the redisclosure”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Prime Communications’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 24, is DENIED.”
“Defendant Catholic Charities, Inc., Diocese of Madison’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 27, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, Dkt. 25, is DENIED as moot.”
“The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. 65 and Dkt. 67, are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff’s other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Dkt. 35, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Burgess’s motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, Dkt. 40, is DENIED.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The state of Wisconsin’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 16, is GRANTED. The state is DISMISSED from the case.”
“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.”
“The village defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 21, is GRANTED in part; defendants Bierman, Schaub, and village of Oregon are DISMISSED from the case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 24, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Caine Transfer Inc.’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 6, is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Shutter Zone Media LLC’s motions to dismiss, Dkt. 7 and Dkt. 13, are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Eternix Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 100, is GRANTED in part for defendant CivilGEO as described in Dkt. 176.”
“CivilGEO’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 95, is 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.”
“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.
Draft for Judge Peterson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Peterson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Peterson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace