Skip to Content

Litigating in the Central District of California

The United States District Court for the Central District of California is the nation’s largest district court.  It is also one of the busiest intellectual property courts in the country, often leading in the number of copyright and trademark cases, and is generally among the top four districts for patent cases. It is one of thirteen districts nationwide selected to participate in the Patent Pilot Program, an experiment in judicial specialization.  Six Central District of California Judges participate in the Patent Pilot Program, and they handle the majority of patent cases in the Central District of California.  The Patent Pilot Program District Court judges sit in Los Angeles and Orange County, and they are complemented by a cadre of Magistrate Judges who are experienced with, and have a particular interest in, patent cases.  Magistrate Judges often handle discovery issues in patent cases, and by agreement of the parties, can also preside over the entire case.

Central District of California judges are knowledgeable and experienced, and hold attorneys to a high standard of practice.  The Central District of California has extensive local rules governing many aspects of civil cases, and each judge typically has a standing order with additional requirements for cases pending before that judge. While the Central District of California does not have patent local rules, some of the judges have patent rules for their cases, and other judges will apply some version of patent local rules where appropriate, often in consultation with the parties.

The Central District of California has handled many cases involving biotechnology patents, chemical patents, pharmaceutical patents, communications patents, drug patents, medical patents, medical device patents, electrical lighting patents, house fixtures patents, illumination patents, materials processing patents, and mechanical patents.

Glancy Prongay & Murray Los Angeles patent litigation attorney Jonathan Rotter served as the first law clerk to the Central District of California’s Patent Pilot Program judges for three years.  If you have, or are thinking about filing a patent case in the Central District of California, please contact Mr. Rotter.  Mr. Rotter also serves as co-counsel (local counsel) for attorneys from out of state with cases in the Central District.

IP Litigation

Get In Touch

Disclaimer: By providing my phone number to Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, I agree and acknowledge that Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP may send text messages to my wireless phone number for any purpose. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency will vary, and you will be able to Opt-out by replying “STOP.” For more information on how your data will be handled please visit https://www.glancylaw.com/privacy-policy/.

New Cases & Investigations
—

If you would like to learn more or become a part of any of our cases

Join Case Now

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials