Earlier this month I posted on the latest round of patent status conferences in Tyler. At those conference Judge Davis set eighteen Markmans and eighteen cases for jury selection. Of those, I think four were set on top of the Markman and jury selection settings of prior cases, and thirteen got their own settings. Those thirteen received Markmans in September and October of 2013, i.e 13-14 months from the status conference) and jury selection settings from November 2014 to February 2015, i.e. 27-30 months from the status conference.
From 9-11 or so this morning, Judge Gilstrap and Judge Payne conducted status conferences in Marshall for approximately 84 patent cases, following their first status conference in April (of which only the first eight appear to be pre-AIA, and not all of those still have multiple defendants). Based on recent orders consolidating portions of the cases, either in their entirety or for certain pretrial matters, they assigned 34 Markman dates and provided 34 jury selection dates. It appears that two cases were set on top of Markman and trial dates set for earlier related cases after the April status conference - both of those cases received February 2013 Markman dates and August 2013 jury selection dates, i.e. 6 and 11 months respectively from today. The other 32 received Markman dates ranging from March to August 2013, i.e. 7-12 months from the status conference, and trial dates ranging from September 2013 to March 2014, i.e. 12-19 months from the status conference. My notes indicated that they are scheduling 5-8 Markman hearings per month, and providing jury selection dates for 4-8 patent cases per month.
I don't say "trial settings" any longer, because while the cases may be consolidated for pretrial, or even in their entirety, once they reach jury selection, many cases will may have multiple trials, either because the AIA requires it, or because the court determines that separate trials are appropriate under FRCP 42. So, assuming nothing changes between now and then (dismissals, transfer, summary judgment, etc.) at that point the cases could potentially break back out into the original 84 cases - and actually substantially more since the docket contained what will likely be the last of the pre-AIA cases in which multiple defendants were sued in the same case.