Practices  |  Litigation

Eastern District of Virginia: The Rocket Docket


Wiley Rein’s Rocket Docket Team, composed of our most experienced litigators, is notable for both its size and its demonstrated ability in assisting clients to successfully navigate through the Eastern District of Virginia’s fabled Rocket Docket—the fastest federal trial docket in the country for complex commercial cases.  The average Rocket Docket case has a life expectancy of only eight to 10 months from filing to trial, and the court strictly enforces a 90- to 120-day discovery period.  Continuances are rare, and non-dispositive motions are heard weekly to ensure speedy resolution.  Its “business friendly” reputation adds to the appeal of this most efficient court.

Our litigators possess in-depth knowledge of the Rocket Docket and its unusual rules and predilections, and use it to our clients’ advantage, such as in the BlackBerry patent matter. For those plaintiffs able to file in the Eastern District of Virginia, the reputation of the court alone can help resolve significant cases very quickly.  Because of the speed with which this court dispenses justice, it has become an especially advantageous venue for patent cases.  For other business litigants who seek rapid determination of their rights as well, this court is often an attractive forum in which to be a plaintiff.  For defendants, this court can pose both pitfalls and opportunities.  Wiley Rein has both vast experience and a proven track record in this court.

Selected representative matters include:

  • Currently defending Verizon Wireless in patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Virginia (scheduled for trial in early 2014).
  • Currently representing TomTom in TomTom, Inc. v. AOT Systems GmbH, et al., the first foreign patent holder lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. § 293 provisions of America Invents Act.
  • In October 2013, obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of Booz Allen Hamilton in lawsuit filed by subcontractor for USAID financial sector project in the Ukraine, alleging failure to comply with workshare obligations.  This follows successful motion to dismiss three fraud-related claims earlier in the case.  During the litigation, obtained four sanctions awards against Plaintiff subcontractor and/or its counsel.
  • Obtained transfer of domain names in favor of an international news organization under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).
  • Successfully defended large restaurant chain in collective/class action litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 2012, defeating Plaintiffs’ attempts to create a class of many thousands of former and current employees on wage-and-hour allegations.
  • In June 2012, obtained dismissal of a conspiracy claim against a distributor of communications systems for underground mines in the event of a mine explosion or collapse, where parties disputed rights under a teaming agreement to develop the technology.
  • In early 2012, defeated emergency injunction request by subcontractor related to terms of a contract for services to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, resulting in favorable resolution for client prime contractor.
  • Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement in 2012 on behalf of client Openet Telecom in the Eastern District of Virginia, in which competitor and software giant Amdocs alleged that Openet’s products infringed four Amdocs patents.
  • In 2011, obtained favorable result for international IT consulting firm arising out of attempts by former executives to steal government contracts, key personnel, and proprietary data.
  • On behalf of Electronic Data Systems (EDS), defeated emergency TRO and (several months later) obtained complete dismissal of seven-count complaint including breach of contract, conspiracy, tortious interference, and defamation filed by a subcontractor on a U.S. Navy prime contract, where subcontractor alleged conspiracy to remove the subcontractor from the contract while soliciting its personnel.  Skillstorm, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems, LLC, et al., 2009 WL 3316358 (E.D. Va. 2009).
  • Represented Verizon Wireless in a multi-defendant patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Virginia where the plaintiff DNT LLC sought more than $140M in damages in connection with wireless data cards.  In December 2009, a jury returned a verdict for our client, finding no infringement and finding the patent invalid on multiple grounds.
  • In 2008, successfully pursued claims of breach of teaming agreement and improper solicitation of proprietary information and personnel against partner with respect to a proposal to the Department of State for Information Technology Worldwide Help Desk Support Services contract and obtained favorable settlement after pursuing contempt sanctions for violation of a court order.
  • In Coinstar, Inc. v. Coinxchange, LLC, represented a local start-up company sued by industry giant in a lawsuit alleging infringement of multiple patents.  Developed aggressive invalidity and inequitable conduct defense to leverage mutually favorable business settlement on the eve of trial in 2007.
  • Obtained multi-million recovery for U.S. airline in a breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence action against foreign entity engaged to repair airline engines.
  • Secured, on behalf of client NTP Inc., a $612.5 million patent infringement settlement with Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM), the maker of BlackBerry wireless email devices. The settlement, one of the largest ever of its kind, resolved a fiercely contested, high-profile patent case stemming from a 2002 jury trial in which we successfully argued that RIM’s core BlackBerry line of wireless email products, software, and services willfully infringed NTP patents.
  • Successfully represented client in federal court in Richmond, obtaining dismissal of a ten-count complaint filed by Cavalier Telephone LLC, a competitive carrier in Virginia.  The court dismissed the entire complaint, including antitrust, false advertising, and Communications Act claims (Cavalier Telephone, LLC v. Verizon Virginia Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff’d, 330 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, (124 S. Ct. 1144 2004)).
  • Represented a plaintiff in trademark action. (Talent Plus, Inc. v. Pers. Decisions Int’l Corp., Civil Action No. 03-239 (E.D. Va. 2003)).
  • Successfully represented Spirit Airlines, Inc. in a cybersquatting action.  On September 30, 2003, the court ruled in favor of our client, granting it control of the Internet domain name “” and awarding $100,000 in damages.
  • Prevailed on claims involving attempted domestication of Canadian judgments in which a court granted summary judgment before trial.  On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the victory was affirmed in part and certified in part to the Virginia Supreme Court, after which the case settled very favorably to our client. (Jaffe v. Accredited Cas. & Sur. Co., Civil Action No. 00-1913 (E.D. Va. 2002), aff’d in part and certified in part, 294 F.3d 584 (4th Cir. 2002)).
  • Successfully defended a client regarding an affinity marketing arrangement that was terminated. (, Inc. v. HRB Mgmt., Inc.  Civil Action No. 02-829 (E.D. Va. 2002)).
  • Represented Genesis Insurance Co. when it intervened to protect its interests in a shareholder action. (Andrews v. Primus Telecom Group, Civil Action No. 01-956 (E.D. Va. 2002)).
  • Successfully settled a suit involving race and sex discrimination. (Alexander v. Visa U.S.A./Inovant, Inc, Case No. 1:02-CV-01135 (E.D. Va. 2002)).
  • Served as chapter 7 trustee in the Computer Learning Centers, Inc. case, successfully liquidating 25 schools in 10 states and raising $30,000,000 to benefit more than 9,000 mostly consumer and employee creditors in the largest and most complex chapter 7 case ever to be filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. (In re Computer Learning Centers, Inc., Case No. 01-80096-SSM (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2001)).
  • Obtained a favorable settlement in an in rem complaint under the ACPA. (Westvaco Corp. v., Civil Action No. 01-1404 (E.D. Va. 2001)).
  • Litigated what is believed to be the first domain name cybersquatting case to go to trial under the ACPA, making new law on several issues including whether bad faith is a required element of an in rem ACPA claim.  The case involved claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. (Harrods, Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 110 F. Supp. 2d 420 (E.D. Va. 2000)).
  • Protected a client’s rights in a trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition action, resulting in a favorable consent order entered by the court. (Mars, Inc. v. NATCO Sales & Mktg., Inc., Civil Action No. 99-730 (E.D. Va. 1999)).
  • Successfully pursued a Declaratory Judgment Action against the California holder of a trademark after a client’s receipt of a “cease and desist” letter in Virginia.  The court granted our motion for summary judgment, resulting in the extinguishment of the opposition’s trademark.  The case involved claims of trademark infringement, anti-dilution, fictitious name, and unfair competition. (FCW Gov’t Tech. Group, Inc. v. GMW Communications, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-2089 (E.D. Va. 1998)).
  • Obtained a defendant’s jury verdict on all counts in a hotly contested Title VII case brought by a highly paid manager. (Phillips v. Telos Corp., Civil Action No. 95-897 (E.D. Va. 1996)).

Our People

News & Insights

News & Insights