The Western District of Texas may be the most popular venue for patent case filings over the past three years, but it is not the most popular venue for cases litigating a particular type of patent known as a design patent. Unlike the more common utility patent, which generally protects how an item is used and works, a design patent protects how an item looks – its ornamental design.
Between 2020 and 2022, the most popular venue for filing design patent cases was the Northern District of Illinois. Out of the 813 design patent cases filed in all federal district courts between 2020 and 2022, 218 – or 27% – were filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
Of the top district courts for design patent cases filed between 2020 and 2022, the Western District of Texas was fourth behind the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of California, and the Southern District of New York. In fact, more than five times the number of design patent cases were filed in the Northern District of Illinois than in the Western District of Texas in the same time period.
Not surprisingly, design patent cases were a significant percentage of the patent docket in the Northern District of Illinois. Of the 557 patent cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois between 2020 and 2022, 39.1% were design patent cases.
In fact, the number of design patent cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois has been increasing since 2017, reaching a 10-year high of 89 cases in 2022.
By comparison, of the 2,711 patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas during that same time period, only 37, or a little more than 1%, were design patent cases. Even in the Central District of California, the 139 design patent cases filed were only 18.2% of the total number of patent cases filed in that district during that time period. Out of those 37 design patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas between 2020 and 2022, 28 were before Judge Alan Albright.
Judge Albright has highest number of design patent case filings during the three-year period:
By comparison, of the 3,002 patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas during that same time period, only 41, or a little more than 1%, were design patent cases. Even in the Central District of California, the 194 design patent cases filed were only 17.6% of the total number of patent cases filed in that district during the time period. Out of those 41 design patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas between 2019 and 2022, 30 were before Judge Alan Albright.
Judge Albright is tied with Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California for the highest number of design patent case filings during the three-year period:
Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the Central District of California is second, followed by Judge Kronstadt, who is also from the Central District of California. Judge Martha Maria Pacold, of the Northern District of Illinois, is fourth in number of design patent case filings, and Judge George Wu of the Central District of California is fifth.
For the judges with patent cases filed from 2020 to 2022 in the Northern District of Illinois, design patent cases can comprise a significant percentage of their docket. The number and percentage of design patent cases filed from 2020 to 2022 before the top ten district court judges for patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois is shown below:
| Judge | patent cases | design patent cases | % design patent cases |
| Matthew F. Kennelly | 33 | 11 | 33.3% |
| Mary Margaret Rowland | 33 | 8 | 24.2% |
| Steven Charles Seeger | 32 | 14 | 43.8% |
| Andrea Robin Wood | 31 | 9 | 29.0% |
| Gary Feinerman | 30 | 8 | 26.7% |
| Sharon Johnson Coleman | 28 | 13 | 46.4 |
| Martha Maria Pacold | 28 | 16 | 57.1% |
| Sara Lee Ellis | 27 | 9 | 33.3% |
| Thomas Michael Durkin | 27 | 13 | 48.1% |
| Manish Suresh Shah | 26 | 9 | 34.6% |
Finally, the Northern District of Illinois is also one of the most popular venues for a certain kind of design patent case, sometimes referred to as a “Schedule A” case because the defendants are typically identified as “the Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A” (or some variation). In a “Schedule A” case, a plaintiff sues a large number of defendants – typically internet sellers in China – who are listed in a “Schedule A” attached to the complaint. Lex Machina will be analyzing “Schedule A” design patent cases in an upcoming blog post.