Colm F. Connolly
How Judge Connolly rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Connolly
Colm Felix Connolly is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Connolly received a commission on August 3, 2018.
Judge Connolly's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Connolly, 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.
- Standing Order Regarding Briefing in All Cases ↗
- Standing Order for Summary Judgment Practice in Patent Cases ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding Arrangements ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Disclosure Statements ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Pro Hac Vice Motions ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order for Non-Patent Cases – Revised May 1, 2026 ↗
- Scheduling Order for Non-Hatch-Waxman Patent Cases in Which Infringement is Alleged – Revised April 18, 2022 ↗
- Scheduling Order for Non-Hatch-Waxman Patent Cases in Which Only Invalidity is Alleged – Revised April 18, 2022 ↗
- Scheduling Order for Hatch-Waxman Patent Infringement Cases – Revised April 26, 2022 ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Hatch-Waxman Cases ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Disclosure of Citizenship ↗
Key rules
Filing
For represented parties, convert local page limits to 250 words per page and certify the word count.
“Where page limits are specified by local rule, the parties shall use a word-count limit. For each page allowed by local rule, the parties shall use up to 250 words. For example, where the page limit specified by rule is 20 pages, the maximum number of words for a party’s submission would be 5,000 (20 x 250). A certification as to the total number of words must be included in any submission.”
Filing
Use 14-point Times New Roman or a similar typeface for briefs, letters, motions, and concise statements of fact, with a compliance certification.
“The text for all briefs, letters, motions, and concise statements of fact shall be 14-point and in Times New Roman or similar typeface. Each such filing must include a certification by counsel that the filing complies with the type, font, and word limitations set forth in this Order.”
Filing
A party with nonrecourse third-party litigation funding must file a separate disclosure within the stated 30-day or 45-day window.
“Within the later of 45 days of this Order or 30 days of the filing of an initial pleading or transfer of the matter to this District, including the removal of a state action, the party receiving such funding shall file a statement (separate from any pleading) containing the following information:”
Filing
Nongovernmental entities covered by the order must trace their disclosure statements through the ownership chain to each interested individual or corporation.
“the party must include in its disclosure statement filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 the name of every owner, member, and partner of the party, proceeding up the chain of ownership until the name of every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the party has been identified.”
Motions
In patent cases, number multiple summary-judgment motions in the order requested for review; denial of one generally ends review of later motions.
“The Court will review the party’s summary judgment motions in the order designated by the party. If the Court decides to deny a motion filed by the party, barring exceptional reasons determined sua sponte by the Court, the Court will not review any further summary judgment motions filed by the party.”
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 Connolly decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed patent-eligibility decision, he applied the two-step Alice framework and entered summary judgment where the claims described a generic result using conventional components without a specific technical solution.
“because neither claim 1 nor anything else in the #809 patent's specification explains how the claimed device is configured to achieve the claimed authenticated content transfer ... the claim is directed to the abstract idea of authenticated content transfer.”
In Koninklijke Philips v. Thales, he declined supplemental jurisdiction over Philips’ abuse-of-process claim about representations made in French court. He found no common nucleus of operative fact with the patent claims and also cited comity and the practical burdens of litigating the French-court dispute.
“there is similarly no reason to supplant the French court's laws and remedies regarding false representations made before it. If Philips worries that Defendants made false representations to the French court ... then it should raise those grievances in France.”
Procedural preferences
In Koninklijke Philips v. Telit, Connolly denied Telit's patent-unenforceability summary judgment motion. Its brief did not state why Telit was legally entitled to judgment and cited no record evidence that Philips' alleged misconduct produced an unfair benefit.
“At no point in the Opening Brief does Telit state in a single sentence or paragraph ... why it is entitled to summary judgment ... as a matter of law. ... That failure dooms its motion.”
He enforced the scheduling order’s pinpoint-citation requirement and disregarded disputed factual assertions that lacked a precise citation to the record.
“The Court will ignore any assertions of controverted facts and controverted legal principles not supported by a pinpoint citation ... (citing United States v. Dunkel, 921 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) ('Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.')).”
In MarkDutchCo 1 B.V. v. Zeta Interactive Corp., he enforced the purchase agreement’s deadline for claims about employee misclassification. Zeta first raised the claim more than two and a half years after the contractual deadline, so he dismissed that contract claim.
“The parties bargained for and agreed to this contractual time bar. For the time bar to have any content, two and a half years late must be too late to bring these claims.”
In Mathis v. Friere Charter School, he imposed filing and contact restrictions after finding that the plaintiffs had acted in bad faith through threatening communications and repeated meritless filings. He declined the school’s request for fees and costs because the plaintiffs proceeded without prepayment of fees.
“I will not impose a monetary fine or make the Mathises pay Friere's fees and costs at this juncture because the Mathises proceed informa pauperis.”
Cautions
He treated misleading descriptions of the record and arguments he found plainly meritless as potential grounds for an attorney-fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
“to say that the correspondence 'identifies' infringement by Kioxia is the type of tricky (i.e., not to be trusted) language I have seen too often from BS's law firm. ... And because BS's arguments were so obviously devoid of merit, I will also entertain a motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the #809 and #186 patents are directed toward an unpatentable abstract idea and lack an inventive concept that would make their subject matter eligible for patentability. Accordingly, they are invalid under § 101 and I will grant Intel's Motion for Summary Judgment #1 (D.I. 228).”
“I will therefore deny the motion insofar as it seeks a judgment of no indirect infringement of the six Patents-in-Suit. ... I will grant Synopsys' motion for summary judgment No. 2 insofar as it seeks a judgment of no infringement of the Asserted Claims.”
“Natera's Motion for Summary Judgment #1 of Infringement of the #724 and #544 Patents by Defendant's Accused Products (D.1. 246) is DENIED.”
“Telit IoT Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 154) is DENIED.”
“I will grant in part and deny in part Thales' motion to dismiss and strike. I will grant the motion insofar as it seeks to dismiss Philips' common law abuse of process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I will otherwise deny the motion.”
“I therefore will deny Thales' motion to strike these paragraphs.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.I. 16) is GRANTED; ... The Amended Complaint (D.I. 14) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and ... Plaintiffs shall have until September 11, 2020 to file a Second Amended Complaint.”
“At the close of the argument, I denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to all challenged claims except Count V, a negligence claim titled 'Professional Malpractice.' ... I will grant Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' Professional Malpractice Claim.”
“I will grant MarkDutcho's motion for summary judgment. ... I find that Zeta breached the Purchase Agreement.”
“I will grant ... MarkDutchCo's motion to dismiss counterclaims ... except insofar as the motions seek an award of fees and costs.”
“I will grant ... Markmidco's motion to dismiss third-party claims except insofar as the motions seek an award of fees and costs.”
“Stirista, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Nominative Fair Use (D.I. 61) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 36) is DENIED.”
“Power Integrations, Inc.'s motion to intervene (D.I. 27) is GRANTED.”
“Thales' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Limiting Damages Under 35 U.S.C. 286 (No. 20-1709, D.I. 126; No. 20-1713, D.I. 165) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The District of Delaware is a national patent venue, and Judge Connolly's reviewed caseload includes substantial patent and multidistrict litigation. The listed mix is drawn from the sampled cases and is not a complete court-wide or tenure-wide baseline.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 11 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 21 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 33 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 36 |
| Sep 2023 | 12 | 28 |
| Mar 2023 | 22 | 35 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 35 |
| Mar 2022 | 8 | 35 |
| Sep 2021 | 18 | 28 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 20 |
| Sep 2020 | 9 | 11 |
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 Connolly: 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 Connolly with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Connolly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Connolly's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace