United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, encompassing the San Jose Division, is a prominent venue for patent litigation, falling under the Ninth Circuit. While historically a significant hub for patent filings, particularly after the TC Heartland decision in 2017, its patent caseload saw a decrease in recent years. In 2024, the district recorded 113 patent filings, with 24 through March 2025, a 20% decrease from the previous year. In 2025, the Northern District of California ranked 10th nationally for new patent cases, with 105 filings, making it a major, though not the busiest, patent court.

The N.D. Cal. has a reputation as a venue favorable to patent defendants, partly due to its experienced bench and willingness to grant early dispositive motions. The court is not considered a "rocket docket" in the same vein as some other patent-heavy districts, with its median time-to-trial around 27.7 months as of 2018. Judges in this district frequently grant Alice motions challenging patent eligibility, with a grant rate of over 70% in 2024 and 80% so far in 2025, and all Alice motions decided in 2023 were granted. The court also tends to grant motions to stay cases pending inter partes review (IPR) before the USPTO, granting 80% of such motions in 2024, with all stay motions granted so far this year. For transfer motions, the Northern District of California has a 52.9% success rate for litigants seeking to transfer venue out of California on convenience grounds since 2020. The district also has a relatively high grant rate for summary judgment motions related to infringement or validity of patents at 34.1%, compared to a national average of 22.5%.

The Northern District of California was the first district court to establish local rules specifically for patent cases, enacted in 2000 and subsequently revised. These Patent Local Rules require early disclosure of infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as detailed damages contentions. Patentees must serve damages contentions within 50 days of receiving the defendant's invalidity contentions, identifying damages categories, theories of recovery, factual support, and computations. The rules also govern claim construction procedures, typically limiting the parties to identifying a maximum of ten terms most significant to the case.

Our tracked cases include Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. v. Eoptolink Technology USA Inc., which is currently stayed until June 5, 2026. Prominent judges in the San Jose Division who handle patent cases include Judge Beth Labson Freeman and Senior District Judge Edward J. Davila. Judge Freeman, appointed in 2014, is known for hearing a broad array of technology cases, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters, and serves on the Northern District's patent local rules and jury instruction committees. Judge Davila has a standing order specifically for patent cases, updated in May 2019. Judge James Donato, sitting in San Francisco, has also handled notable patent eligibility cases, granting a Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss in Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix Inc. based on § 101 subject matter ineligibility.