It's always a good idea to keep up to speed on the judges' form scheduling orders. In their form orders, the judges set forth their preferences, and when those orders are entered in a case, they can override some of the local rules.
In the past, when the judges have updated their form scheduling orders, they have occasionally ordered that the updates to apply to pending cases. Sometimes, even absent such an order, counsel have been eager to apply the new procedures on their own.
(The last such change I recall was when judges started switching over to Judge Andrews' method of claim construction briefing, where the parties serve back-and-forth claim construction briefs and file one joint brief with the arguments in line. That system is just better for everyone.)
Either way, it's good to keep up-to-date on what the judges' preferences are.
Today, Judge Williams updated his forms. You may have noticed that his website includes a bright red a request to "Please Note Judge Williams Scheduling Orders were updated as of May 7, 2025."
To save everyone some effort, I ran redlines of Judge Williams' new May 7, 2025 patent scheduling orders as compared to his previous ones. The only change I saw relates to ADR. His previous scheduling order included a mandatory referral for ADR, which was based on the Court's old practice of referring all cases to ADR. This update tweaks the language to make mediation optional:
ADR Process. This matter may be referred to a magistrate judge to explore the possibility of alternative dispute resolution if the parties jointly request such a referral.
(The new language is bolded; it used to say the matter "is" referred for medation, now it says the matter "may be" referred.)
Of course, thus far, the Court as a whole has been hesitant to refer IP cases for mediation—I wouldn't assume that this language tweak indicates a change of that view.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
