Western District of Texas (Waco Division)

The Waco Division of the Western District of Texas became, almost overnight, one of the busiest patent venues in the country after Judge Alan Albright took the bench in 2018. A standardized scheduling order, a public reluctance to stay cases pending PTAB review, and a stable trial-setting practice attracted plaintiffs at scale through 2022, when a chief-judge order randomized new patent assignments across the district. The court remains a major patent forum, but the post-2022 distribution and a series of Federal Circuit mandamus rulings have reshaped its caseload.

Overview

The Western District of Texas covers a wide swath of central and west Texas, with divisions in Austin, San Antonio, Waco, El Paso, Midland-Odessa, Pecos, and Del Rio. Patent activity is concentrated in Waco, where Judge Alan Albright — a former patent litigator and magistrate judge — was appointed to the only Article III seat in 2018. Because Waco previously had only one resident district judge, almost every patent case filed in Waco landed on Judge Albright's docket.

From 2018 through 2021, Waco's patent filings climbed sharply. By 2020 and 2021, the Western District accounted for roughly a fifth to a quarter of all patent cases filed nationally. The surge reflected several factors: a fast and predictable Order Governing Proceedings, firm trial dates set early, a docket philosophy that disfavored stays, and the district's broad reading of post-TC Heartland venue for technology defendants with offices or employees in central Texas.

On July 25, 2022, Chief Judge Orlando Garcia issued an order directing that newly filed patent cases in the Waco Division be randomly reassigned across twelve district judges in the Western District. The order applied prospectively and significantly altered the practical effect of filing in Waco: a plaintiff could no longer expect Judge Albright to hear its case. Filing volume in the Waco Division fell substantially after the order, and the broader patent caseload of the district became more heterogeneous.

Local patent rules

The Western District does not have district-wide local patent rules of the sort adopted in the Eastern District of Texas, the District of Delaware, or the Northern District of California. Patent procedure in Waco was instead governed by Judge Albright's standing Order Governing Proceedings — Patent Cases, which functions as a local-rule analog and which other judges in the district may or may not adopt or modify when patent cases are reassigned to them.

The Order Governing Proceedings sets out, in numbered paragraphs, a default sequence of disclosures and deadlines:

• Preliminary infringement contentions due within a fixed period after the case management conference, with claim charts on an element-by-element basis and identification of any doctrine-of-equivalents theory.
• Preliminary invalidity contentions a set number of weeks later, with prior art charts and identification of § 101 and § 112 grounds.
• Exchange of proposed claim terms and constructions, leading to a Markman hearing typically held in advance of substantial fact discovery on damages.
• Final contentions, expert reports, dispositive and Daubert motions, pretrial, and trial.

Following the 2022 random-reassignment order, practitioners encounter judges who follow Judge Albright's order, judges who use a modified version, and judges who apply general Federal Rules scheduling. Confirming which judge has the case and which scheduling regime governs is the first task on any newly filed Western District patent matter.

Typical scheduling

Under Judge Albright's standing order, a default Waco patent case targeted trial roughly twenty to twenty-four months from the case management conference. Markman hearings were typically held within nine to twelve months of the conference; expert discovery followed claim construction; and dispositive motions were briefed close to pretrial. The court's reputation rested heavily on holding to the trial date.

For cases reassigned away from Waco, scheduling has varied. Some Austin and San Antonio judges have adopted shorter or longer tracks; some have been more receptive to bifurcating liability and damages or to staging discovery to follow claim construction. Practitioners should not assume that a "Waco-style" schedule will travel with a randomly reassigned case.

Notable practices

Transfer motions and mandamus

The Federal Circuit has issued multiple mandamus opinions reviewing transfer rulings in the Western District. The earliest and most frequently cited is In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020), in which the Federal Circuit granted mandamus and ordered transfer to the Northern District of California, holding that the district court had under-weighted the location of party witnesses and engineering documents. In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., 28 F.4th 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2022), addressed timing and required prompt action on transfer motions ahead of substantial discovery. Additional opinions over the same period — In re Samsung Electronics Co., 2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021), among others — refined the application of the Fifth Circuit's Volkswagen framework in the Western District context. The cumulative effect is that transfer is, as in the Eastern District of Texas, a central pretrial battleground.

Stays pending IPR

Judge Albright has been notably reluctant to stay district court cases pending inter partes review. The standing order and pattern of rulings reflect a view that an early trial date weighs heavily against simplification, particularly when the PTAB has not yet instituted. The Federal Circuit's mandamus on transfer did not displace this practice. Defendants planning IPR strategy in Waco-track cases generally treat a stay as unlikely and instead aim to coordinate the PTAB and district court timelines so as to preserve estoppel arguments and parallel positioning.

Sealing and source code

The court's standing protective order template covers the usual technical and financial categories. Source code review proceeds at a designated facility on a non-networked machine. Sealing of substantive filings is permitted but is closely scrutinized at trial, and the court has repeatedly required parties to redact narrowly rather than seal whole documents.

Recent doctrinal pressure points

Three issues animate current practice. First, the post-2022 reassignment regime created a coordination problem: cases filed in Waco may be heard by judges with different patent procedures, and parties must negotiate scheduling against that uncertainty. Second, Federal Circuit mandamus on transfer continues to discipline convenience analysis; well-developed records on witness location and source-code custodianship are now standard. Third, the interaction between district court trial dates and PTAB institution decisions — including the discretionary considerations the PTAB applies when parallel litigation is pending — places a premium on filing IPR petitions early and tracking institution timelines closely against the district court schedule.

Patent venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) remains contested in the district. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017), supplies the regular-and-established-place-of-business framework, and disputes over employee residences, leased offices, and third-party reseller locations have generated substantial briefing.

Practical notes for first-time practitioners

• Identify the assigned judge first. The Order Governing Proceedings does not necessarily apply outside of Judge Albright's docket. Confirm which scheduling order governs before drafting your initial disclosures.
• File transfer motions early and develop the record. The Federal Circuit's mandamus practice rewards detailed, timely affidavits on the location of witnesses, evidence, and engineering work.
• Do not count on a stay pending IPR. Plan parallel district court and PTAB litigation budgets accordingly. Late-filed petitions are particularly unlikely to support a stay.
• Track the trial date. Cases that retain a fast trial-setting practice will compress expert discovery and Daubert; build the schedule into client expectations from the start.
• Confirm venue at the pleading stage. Defendants' employee and office footprint in central Texas remains a live issue. In re Cray factors should be analyzed before filing or before answering.
• Coordinate with local counsel familiar with the assigned division. Waco, Austin, and San Antonio practice differ in courtroom logistics, jury demographics, and pretrial conventions.

Last reviewed: 2026