Christopher J. Burke
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
Burke is a MAGISTRATE JUDGE. On REFERRED matters (docket suffix -CJB appended to the district judge, e.g. -RGA-CJB, -MN-CJB, -JLH-CJB) his Reports & Recommendations are RECOMMENDATIONS subject to de novo review on objection -- not final rulings; confirm whether the district judge adopted, modified, or rejected the R&R before relying on the outcome. Only in 636(c) CONSENT cases (suffix -CJB only) are his orders final (e.g. NEC v. Peloton).
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 3 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to stay N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to intervene N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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) ...”