Colm F. Connolly
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 patent eligibility (35 U.S.C. 101 / Alice) he runs the full two-step framework and will invalidate at summary judgment where the claims recite a generic result implemented with conventional components and the patentee cannot point to a specific technical solution in the claims or specification.
“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.”
Declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state/foreign-law claims that lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the patent claims, invoking Voda comity and practical (translation, foreign-sovereign) concerns.
“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
Insists a summary-judgment movant state in plain terms why it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; he will not reverse-engineer a legal theory from an attack on the opponent. Failure to do so is itself grounds to deny.
“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.”
Strictly enforces his Scheduling Order's pinpoint-citation requirement and will disregard controverted facts not supported by a pinpoint cite; sloppy/inconsistent briefing risks losing an otherwise-available ruling.
“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 diversity contract/tort disputes Connolly reads the agreement strictly on its plain language: specific provisions control over general ones, bargained-for time bars are enforced even against years-late claims, and he predicts state law conservatively (declining to create new tort causes of action, e.g. professional negligence against an unlicensed expert witness). He also declines fee awards absent quantified losses meeting the contractual threshold or sanctionable conduct (American rule).
“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.”
Cautions
Calls out misleading characterizations of the record by name and will flag a fee exposure (35 U.S.C. 285) where a party's arguments are 'patently meritless.' Candor to the court matters to him.
“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.”
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: 3Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
D. Delaware is a national patent venue; Connolly (Chief Judge) draws heavy patent/MDL work (assigned the Ozempic patent MDL as 'well-versed in complex patent litigation'). Caseload mix read from search_dockets rows (nature_of_suit/cause/jurisdiction_type), not a full IDB baseline.