Christopher J. Burke
How Judge Burke rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Burke decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Securities/derivative pleading: the 'puzzle pleading' doctrine: a Section 14(a)/PSLRA complaint must draw a one-to-one connection between each allegedly misleading statement and the specific reason it is misleading. Block-quoting proxy language with bolding/italics and a generalized list of why it is false does not satisfy the PSLRA's or Rule 8's particularity requirements. Identify each statement and explain, in detail and with specificity, why it is false.
“the Complaint's failure to set out its allegations with clarity and specificity amounts to improper puzzle pleading, and lacks the detail required by both the PSLRA and Rule 8.”
Design-patent infringement is the jury's call under the ordinary-observer test. Functional elements (here, the outermost 'square shape' designed to fit a ceiling grid) are carved out of the claim scope and an expert's reliance on them is stricken, but striking those portions does not entitle the accused infringer to summary judgment if the remaining analysis raises a genuine factual dispute.
“there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to infringement, which means that summary judgment of non-infringement is not warranted.”
Procedural preferences
Answer every argument or lose it. An argument the opposing brief does not substantively respond to is treated as forfeited/waived: here the plaintiffs' silence on a ripeness challenge cost them the contribution claims (dismissed with prejudice).
“As a result, Plaintiffs have forfeited or waived any argument that the contribution claims are ripe and should not be dismissed.”
Patent stay pending IPR: weighs the three stay factors (simplification of issues, status of the case, undue prejudice) pragmatically, and will grant a stay where the asserted claims are squarely before the PTAB and Final Written Decisions are due shortly before trial: to avoid a 'hectic and disjointed pre-trial process'.
“with the 'simplification of issues' factor slightly favoring a stay, the 'status of the case' factor being about neutral, and the 'undue prejudice' factor favoring a stay, Defendant's Motion should be granted.”
Cautions
On referred dispositive matters, Burke's reports and recommendations are subject to district-judge review and are not final rulings unless adopted. In cases where all parties consent to his jurisdiction, his orders are final; examples in this record include NEC v. Peloton, Midwest Energy, Topia, and Attentive Mobile.
“This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the case is STAYED pending the issuance of a FWD in each of the respective IPR proceedings.”
“the Court recommends that the Twitter motion to dismiss be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Specifically, the Court recommends grant of the Twitter motion to dismiss as to Counts I and II as to the Twitter Defendants with prejudice, and as to Counts V and VI as to the relevant Twitter Defendants without prejudice. In all other respects, the Court recommends that the Twitter motion to dismiss be denied.”
“the Court recommends that the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED without prejudice as to the First Claim.”
“It recommends that Stem's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED as to the Second through Ninth Claims, in that the Court grant that motion as to the Seventh and Eighth Claims with prejudice, and grant the motion as to the state law claims without prejudice (i.e., by declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims where no federal claim has been successfully pleaded).”
“the Court recommends that the Motion to Intervene be DENIED as MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that ClearOne's Motion be DENIED.”
“the Court recommends that the Motions be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN PART. More specifically, the Court recommends that: (1) the Motions should be granted as to Count I, except for the allegation of breach of contract as to Articles III.7(c), III.9, VI.1(i) and VI.2 ...”
“the Court recommends that the Motions be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN PART ... the Motions should be granted as to Counts II-V, except to the extent that the claims are premised on false representations (a), (b) and (e) and material omissions (a) and (b) ...”
On remand, Burke supplied requested findings about claimed attorney-client privilege waiver. Because the renewed privilege motion remained pending before the district judge, this order is not treated as a completed motion disposition.
“For the reasons set out above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that CERT’s Motion should be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that CERT’s Motion should be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, CERT’s Motion is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that CERT’s Motion should be DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the Musk motion to dismiss be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”
Draft for Judge Burke with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Burke, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Burke's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace