Judge Gilstrap Stayed on Top in Q3 as Judge Counts Held onto Second Place

The top district judge for patent litigation in Q3 2025 was Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who passed his district’s chief judgeship to Judge Amos L. Mazzant in March 2025.

In second place was Western District of Texas Judge David Counts, who rose in the rankings after adopting a similar case management order to District Judge Alan D. Albright—once the nation’s top patent judge but tied for seventh place with Delaware District Judge Maryellen Noreika in Q3. Judge Albright, a former patent litigator, came to oversee the bulk of the nation’s patent litigation after openly seeking to attract such cases to his courtroom—enabled by a filing loophole that let plaintiffs target a specific division, thus guaranteeing that anyone filing in Waco would get Judge Albright (Waco’s only district judge). A 2022 order targeted that concentration, ordering that all Waco patent cases be randomly assigned among a larger group of judges, including Judge Albright. His patent caseload has slimmed dramatically as a result.

While Judge Counts also presides in a single-judge division (Midland-Odessa), his patent docket is not subject to a similar case reassignment order, thus enabling plaintiffs to target his courtroom in the same manner they once could for Judge Albright—and, by all accounts, they have done so.

Earlier this year, Judge Albright announced that he would move from the Waco Division to the Austin Division. While he has stated that he would do so while still managing Waco’s docket until his replacement is confirmed, he has increasingly been hearing patent cases in Austin, where he has continued to follow a familiar approach to motions to transfer for convenience. Under that approach, the filing of such motions in Judge Albright’s courtroom triggers a new, distinct phase of patent litigation, the “convenience transfer phase”—one that involves a period of venue-related discovery and subsequent briefing. In one Austin case, Judge Albright vacated in July a recommendation by Magistrate Judge Mark Lane that a case be transferred to the Northern District of California because the court had not ordered venue discovery, subsequently rejecting a motion for reconsideration—holding that now that the suit was before him (Judge Albright), such discovery must now occur to enable a suitably “fulsome record”.

More on Judge Albright’s approach, including with respect to the various transfer factors, can be found here. Further coverage of venue trends and other developments impacting patent litigation is also available in RPX’s third-quarter review.