U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: Patent Litigation Profile

Court Overview

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, abbreviated as D. Colo., is a federal court in the Tenth Circuit. Appeals in patent cases, however, are directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court holds proceedings in several locations, including Denver, Colorado Springs, Durango, and Grand Junction. While not a traditional patent litigation hotspot on the scale of the Western District of Texas or the District of Delaware, the District of Colorado maintains a consistent patent docket. Legal analytics data from recent years does not place it among the top districts for patent case filings, suggesting a more moderate caseload compared to the busiest national venues.

Patent Docket Reputation

The District of Colorado is not considered a "rocket docket" for patent cases. Statistics from 2020 show the shortest time from filing to trial in an intellectual property case was seventeen months. The court is generally viewed as a neutral forum for patent disputes. There is no strong reputation for being either plaintiff- or defendant-friendly. Published reports do not indicate a significant track record of granting or denying transfer motions that would suggest a particular leaning on venue disputes.

Local Rules and Procedures

A key feature of practicing in this district is the set of Local Patent Rules (D.C.COLO.LPtR), first adopted as a pilot program in 2014. These rules aim to create uniformity and efficiency in patent litigation. They govern many aspects of a case, including scheduling conferences, the content and timing of infringement and invalidity contentions, and the claim construction (Markman) process. Unlike some other districts, Colorado's rules require the accused infringer to serve a detailed "Response to the patent owner's Infringement Contentions." The rules also set presumptive deadlines and word counts for claim construction briefing, with the party asserting invalidity typically filing the opening brief. Amendments to contentions are permitted only upon a showing of "good cause."

Notable Cases and Rulings

While the provided tracked cases, NM, LLC v. The Kroger Co. and Orthosie Systems, LLC v. LoJack Corporation, are noted, more recent public rulings offer insight into the court's handling of patent issues. In one notable case, Judge William J. Martínez presided over litigation involving a patent for cannabis formulations, where he denied a summary judgment motion that the patent was invalid for claiming a natural phenomenon (United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc.). Judge Martínez reasoned that the specific liquified concentrations of cannabinoids claimed in the patent did not occur in nature and were the result of human "handiwork." In another matter, Judge Martínez handled post-trial motions in a significant patent infringement case, XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, addressing issues of willfulness and ongoing royalty rates.

Judges

Several judges in the district have experience with patent cases.

• Daniel D. Domenico, who became Chief Judge in March 2026, has handled patent-related matters.
• William J. Martínez, now a senior judge, has presided over multiple patent infringement cases, including the notable ones mentioned above.
• Raymond P. Moore has also been involved in patent litigation, issuing orders in cases involving infringement claims.