NEW YORK, Nov 3 (Reuters Legal) - In the latest development in the ongoing smartphone patent wars, Apple Inc has apparently engaged in some creative forum shopping, taking its fight with Motorola Inc to Madison, Wisconsin, which is developing a reputation as a "rocket docket" for patent litigation.

The iPhone maker filed two lawsuits against rival Motorola last week in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, claiming the Droid smartphone maker infringes on Apple's touchscreen and display patents. Motorola has pending patent infringement claims against Apple in the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Florida, and with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) over different technologies used in Apple's iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and certain Mac computers.

Motorola also preemptively sued Apple in Delaware federal court on Oct. 8, asking a judge to declare that it is not infringing on certain Apple software patents.

Apple's choice to file suit in the Western District of Wisconsin is noteworthy. More natural choices of jurisdiction would have been the Northern District of Illinois near Motorola's headquarters, Motorola's legal home of Delaware, or Apple's home in the Northern District of California.

SPEED MATTERS

The venue Apple picked has been dubbed a "rocket docket" by IP attorneys for its speedy trials and judicial efficiency. Two of the court's justices, Senior Judge Barbara Crabb and now-retired Judge John Shabaz, helped to build the court's reputation with their strict schedules and no-nonsense styles.

Speed is crucial to plaintiffs in these cases, given patents' limited lifetime. With strong ties to the University of Wisconsin and the local high-tech sector, the court's jury pool is also thought to favor patent holders and others trying to enforce IP rights.

The main forum-of-choice for patent claimants in recent years has been the Eastern District of Texas. At first, that district attracted personal injury, product liability, and tobacco suits with its pro-plaintiff juries and short-order trials. Patent cases soon followed. But with plaintiff lawyers flocking en masse to Marshall, Texas, clogging the court's docket, patent lawyers have started to seek alternative forums with less activity and faster resolution of cases.

The Western District of Wisconsin has emerged as a favorable venue with a smaller docket, says Mark Kesslen, an IP litigator at Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, New Jersey. While he has not litigated in the Wisconsin federal court, his law partner has been involved in patent litigation there.

Kesslen says speed is the main factor driving patent holders to Wisconsin federal court. Plaintiffs can take the time needed to prepare their case while defendants are forced to catch up after the suit is filed-on a shorter timeline in Madison court. Kesslen says Apple likely chose the venue to place pressure on Motorola.

In a study published last week in the AIPLA Quarterly Journal called "Where to file your patent case," Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley analyzed the lawsuit data of the 33 most active patent district courts. He found that the Western District of Wisconsin and the Eastern District of Virginia are true "rocket dockets" where the average patent trial is completed less than a year after the case was filed. The federal court in Wisconsin ranked first in terms of time to trial, time to resolution and third in the percentage of cases that make it to trial. The district ranked only 28th with its plaintiff win rate. Lemley found the best patent district for plaintiffs overall to be the Middle District of Florida.

Apple declined to comment on its choice of venue for the Motorola infringement suits. The company gives few clues in its complaint aside from the claim that "Motorola is engaged in substantial and not isolated activities within Wisconsin and this judicial district." Apple may have chosen the Western District of Wisconsin for a reason other than speed. Dennis Crouch, a professor of the University of Missouri School of Law and author of the patent law blog Patently-O, says Apple likely chose the district as a way of avoiding Illinois and Delaware, because Motorola recently sued Apple in those locales. Those courts would likely have joined the cases, causing Apple to forfeit its "plaintiff" status and assume a defensive position, according to Crouch. He adds that it might have been politically difficult for Apple to file in the Eastern District of Texas, given the company's tendency to portray that venue as a forum for so-called "patent trolls"-plaintiffs that sue to enforce patents without actually making use of the patented invention themselves.

The cases are Apple Inc v. Motorola Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin (Madison), No. 3:10-CV-00661 and Apple Inc v. Motorola Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin (Madison), No. 3:10-CV-00662. Apple is represented by Godfrey & Kahn in Madison, Wisconsin, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges in Redwood Shores, California; Washington, D.C.; and New York. The Delaware case is Motorola Mobility Inc v. Apple Inc et al, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington), No. 10-CV-00867. Motorola is represented by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Wilmington, Delaware, and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in San Francisco, New York and Chicago.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes of Reuters Legal; Additional reporting by Ernest Scheyder of Reuters)