Top Stories Milwaukee

Wondering how to get a quick resolution to a federal case? You’d be wise to avoid Wisconsin’s Eastern District federal court in Milwaukee, considered something of a slow poke, while the Western District Court in Madison is among the nation’s fastest.  Long known as a “rocket docket” – legal slang for one that tries cases quickly and is often favored by plaintiffs – the court attracts high-profile suits, including one mobile phone maker Nokia filed against Apple in May.

Because plaintiffs in patent cases can largely choose where they file, they often gravitate to the quickest districts, experts say. And among the 33 federal courts that have decided at least 25 patent cases since 2000, the federal trial court in Madison has resolved its cases the most quickly. Between 2000 and March 2010, according to research by Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, the court resolved 256 cases in an average of slightly more than six months. Cases that went to trial only averaged about nine months.

illustration by adrian palomo

Patent cases are highly technical and can take years to litigate. Through the legal grapevine, some courts, like the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of Texas, have built up reputations for dealing with the cases both quickly and competently. Lemley’s study was an attempt to test the lawyers’ lore with hard data.

“(Wisconsin’s) Western District is considered a hot patent forum because it has well-respected judges and the cases move quickly,” he says. “Some districts, often smaller ones, have a goal of resolving cases quickly because they feel justice delayed is often justice denied.”

Kali Murray, a Marquette University law professor, also points to Madison’s preeminence:  “Patent law venues have waxed and waned over the years,” she says, ”and Wisconsin is experiencing quite the renaissance.” She says lawyers bringing patent suits also favor more educated juries – which they believe they’ll get in Madison, a university town that’s home to a relatively high number of college graduates.

Judge John Shabaz, who retired last year, spent years building Wisconsin’s rocket docket reputation with Senior Judge Barbara Crabb, who still carries a full case load on the court. Shabaz (sometimes called a “cantankerous jurist”) was known for setting strict deadlines for lawyers. He told the Wisconsin Law Journal in 2007 he “takes great pride in the efficient case management for which he’s known.” Criminal defense attorneys objected to the breakneck pace – but patent lawyers came in droves.

Many didn’t have to travel far. According to Shubha Ghosh, a UW-Madison law professor, the city is home to quite a few prominent intellectual property lawyers. He says the Western’s District’s rocket docket reputation really took off about five years ago. “The court’s a quick decider. That affects costs and the timing of decisions,” he says.

“Speedy and affordable”

There have been murmurings for many years that Wisconsin is a good choice for lodging a patent complaint. Three lawyers from Foley & Lardner’s Intellectual Property Litigation group in Madison wrote a column in Intellectual Property Today in 2001 promoting their hometown court. They call it “the best-kept secret in patent litigation” and “a speedy and affordable venue.”

The Western District Bar Association has long pushed to keep the rocket docket humming. In 2009, it called on the Federal Nominating Commission to select a replacement for Shabaz that would protect the court’s reputation for efficiency. Out-of-state companies hire Wisconsin lawyers to serve as boots on the ground in patent cases, according to Ghosh.

In the Nokia case, the company is alleging Apple is violating patents it holds on mobile technology. National media, not realizing the case was filed in super fast Madison, mused that the case could drag on for years. It’s assigned to new judge William M. Conley, who replaced Crabb in 2010. Though she still carries a full case load, she is considered semi-retired and doesn’t count anymore as one of the court’s judges for nominating purposes, having taken on “senior judge” status. Shabaz is also a senior judge but no longer hears cases.

President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the conservative Shabaz, liberal former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, still awaits confirmation by the U.S. Senate. It’s not clear yet if a court run by Conley and Butler will match the pace set by Shabaz and Crabb. One sign it might slow down: In July 2009, the court extended its deadline for setting trials from 12 months after the initial scheduling conference to 15 months.

But according to a letter sent to clients of Wisconsin’s Michael, Best and Friedrich, “The Court stressed that because of the new schedule, any requests for extension will be denied … the Western District still is one of the fastest courts in the country for patent cases.”

Most patent holders want quick vindication, Lemley notes, as patents only last 20-25 years,  and each year spent tied up in court drives up legal fees while they miss out on exclusive use of their technology in the marketplace.

The Western District of Wisconsin has other habits patent holders like. About 7 percent of the court’s cases have gone to trial since 2000, according to Lemley’s study, as compared to a national average of about 3 percent. Juries tend to favor the patent owners. Only two other courts in the country brought higher percentages of cases to trial (the District of Delaware and the East District of Texas).

That’s part of the Shabaz legacy. A Madison attorney told the Wisconsin State Journal in 2007, “He’s a trial lawyers’ kind of judge. He demands punctuality; he expects brevity, and he insists on everyone’s awareness of the presence of the jury being the most important thing.”

In contrast, since 2000, the district court in Milwaukee has tried less than 1 percent of its patent case and is far slower than Madison – cases conclude in about 15 months.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.