Howard C. Nielson, Jr

Judge Profile: Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

District of Utah

Judge Overview

Howard C. Nielson, Jr. is an active United States District Judge in the District of Utah. He was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 23, 2019, and received his judicial commission on June 12, 2019. Prior to his appointment, Judge Nielson was a partner at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. His earlier career includes serving as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice and as counsel to the Attorney General. Judge Nielson clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He earned his J.D. with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School.

Patent Docket and Claim Construction

Based on publicly available data, Judge Nielson does not appear to manage a voluminous patent docket compared to judges in districts with heavier patent caseloads. The single tracked case before him, Rare Breed Triggers Inc et al. v. HK Parts Inc, involves technology in the mechanical space related to firearm components. Patent litigation in the District of Utah is governed by a detailed set of Local Patent Rules (LPRs) that supplement the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules mandate a structured schedule for the exchange of initial and final infringement and invalidity contentions, which serves to define the scope of the dispute early in the case. The LPRs also establish a formal process for claim construction, including the filing of a joint claim construction and prehearing statement and subsequent briefing, which would proceed before Judge Nielson.

Notable Rulings and Procedures

As a relatively recent appointee with a limited patent docket, Judge Nielson has not yet developed an extensive body of published patent-specific opinions. The key tracked matter before him, Rare Breed Triggers, remains open as of early 2026. Litigants appearing before Judge Nielson should pay close attention to his Standing Order for All Civil Cases, which outlines several specific procedural requirements. For substantive motions set for a hearing, he requires the moving party to submit tabbed, three-ring binders containing courtesy copies of all briefing and relevant exhibits. The standing order also prohibits parties from filing multiple, separate motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment without permission. Furthermore, any motion seeking relief must be accompanied by a proposed order, a copy of which must be emailed to chambers in an editable Word format. Judge Nielson's order also states he will generally not grant leave to amend a complaint when the request is made only in a brief responding to a motion to dismiss.