Christopher J. Burke
How Judge Burke rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Burke
Christopher J. Burke has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware since August 2011. Before joining the bench, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Delaware. His judicial work includes patent cases, claim construction, and civil cases heard with the parties’ consent.
Judge Burke's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Burke, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Guidelines for Discovery Disputes ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent - Revised 03/2025 ↗
- Order Governing Mediation Conferences - Statements - Revised 09/25 ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys ↗
- Standing Order for ADR Mediation - Revised 01/16 ↗
- Discovery Matters - Motion to Resolve Discovery Dispute - Revised 01/13 ↗
- Discovery Matters - Joint Motion to Resolve Protective Order Dispute - Revised 01/13 ↗
- Proposed Final Non-Patent Pretrial Order - Revised 06/14 ↗
- Form Letter Regarding Mediation Referral Request - Revised 03/12 ↗
- Proposed Final Patent Pretrial Order - Revised 04/14 ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Non Patent - Revised 03/22 ↗
- Standing Order in Non-Pro Se Matters for Objections filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 ↗
- Standing Order in Pro Se Matters for Objections filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 ↗
- Checklist ↗
- Tips Regarding Markman Briefing and Hearings ↗
Key rules
Filing
Provide two courtesy copies of briefs and supporting papers, and one copy of other filings.
“all parties shall provide to the Court two (2) courtesy copies of all briefs (including letter briefs), as well as any documents filed in support of such briefs (i.e., appendices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, tutorials, etc.). All parties shall provide one (1) copy of any other document filed (e.g., letters and stipulations).”
Filing
Deliver courtesy copies no later than noon the business day after electronic filing.
“Unless ordered differently by the Court, such copies must be provided to the Court by no later than noon the business day after the filing is made electronically.”
Discovery
In a discovery letter brief, state the requested relief separately for each dispute and attach a proposed order.
“The moving party should, in its letter brief, clearly state the relief it is seeking as to each dispute. 2. The moving party should attach a proposed order to its letter brief as an exhibit.”
Discovery
Highlight the important parts of discovery dispute exhibits; for exhibits over 20 pages, include the cover and relevant portions.
“With regard to other types of exhibits the parties attach to their letter briefs, the parties should highlight in yellow those portions of the exhibits that are particularly important and that they want the Court to focus on. 4. If a party is attaching an exhibit to its letter brief, and the exhibit is large (i.e., more than 20 pages), the party should simply include the cover page/first page of the exhibit and then only those other portions of the exhibit that are relevant to the discovery dispute.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- In Re: Amendment to Procedures For Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order Rescinding Mediation of Appeals from Bankruptcy Court ↗
- Standing Order No. 2022-2 Regarding Referrals to Magistrate Judges for Alternative Dispute Resolution ↗
- Originally posted 8-16-2022: Standing Order Regarding Revision to Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures ↗
- Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ↗
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
In In re Stem, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Burke recommended dismissing two contribution claims with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to address the defendant’s ripeness argument in their answering brief. He treated that silence as forfeiture or waiver of their response to the ripeness challenge.
“As a result, Plaintiffs have forfeited or waived any argument that the contribution claims are ripe and should not be dismissed.”
In NEC Corp. v. Peloton, Burke granted a stay pending patent-board review. He found that possible issue simplification and reduced prejudice favored waiting for decisions due shortly before the scheduled trial.
“In the end, 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.”
In Scott v. Vantage Corp., he found a Rule 11 violation in the plaintiffs’ securities suit but imposed a published reprimand instead of the fee award the defendant requested.
“Instead, the Court ORDERS that the appropriate sanction under Rule 11(c) is a formal reprimand as set out herein.”
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.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 12 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 12 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 24 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 14 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 21 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 23 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 15 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, not for Judge Burke: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,391 | 9.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 244 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,042 | 10.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 68 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 37 | 42.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,391 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,331 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,357 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,925 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,823 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,914 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,001 | 5.4 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
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