Eleanor G. Tennyson
How Judge Tennyson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On inequitable-conduct counterclaims in ANDA patent litigation, she holds patent challengers to the strict Exergen 'who/what/when/where/how' pleading particularity standard and rejects theories built on inconsistent statements alone: she dismissed counterclaims where the challenger could not show the Patent Office would have rejected a claim but for the alleged omission (no but-for materiality), and denied leave to replead as futile/prejudicial once fact and expert discovery had closed.
“Where, as here, the references are before the Patent Office, Ascent was required to plead that Astellas made false statements to the Patent Office or committed some other egregious misconduct... Having failed to do so, Ascent has not sufficiently alleged the requisite but-for materiality.”
On privilege/work-product disputes over pre-publication legal-clearance communications, she gives real weight to a company's need to consult non-attorney third parties (a research/clearance vendor, production staff) to assess legal risk, finding those communications privileged and protected work product when 'reasonably necessary' to the attorney's legal analysis -- not merely convenient.
“the communications between Netflix attorneys and Shondaland individuals were reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose for which Ms. Gill was consulted -- i.e., analyzing the legal risks of the series. Therefore, communications between Netflix attorneys and Shondaland relating to the legal risks and exposure from the Inventing Anna series are protected from disclosure.”
Procedural preferences
Strictly enforces the District of Delaware's Local Rule 7.1.1 meet-and-confer requirement for non-dispositive motions -- she denied a motion for leave to file a sur-reply outright because counsel had not actually held the required oral conferral, rejecting the argument that informal compliance should be excused.
“Respondent CF Taurus (US) LLC's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply Brief (D.I. 30) is DENIED for failure to comply with Local Rule 7.1.1, which requires a movant to engage in ‘a reasonable effort’ to reach agreement prior to filing any non-dispositive motion (i.e., oral communication involving Delaware counsel for the moving and non-moving parties).”
On late-stage motions to amend a pleading in patent litigation, she weighs diligence and case-schedule proximity heavily against the movant -- both of the amendments she denied here came after the deadline to amend and close to (or after) the close of discovery, and the district judge affirmed both denials as well-supported.
“she thoughtfully applied the correct law, and her factual conclusions had ample support in the record.”
Cautions
Tennyson took the bench 2024-07-10 (merit-selected, so no appointing president/party) and carries a large REFERRAL caseload -- most visibly, the consolidated Astellas Pharma Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation (at least 8 member cases before Senior Judge Bataillon). Her docket splits into (a) REFERRAL matters (patent MTDs, motions to amend, discovery/sealing disputes, a foreign-discovery miscellaneous action) -- dispositive referrals are RECOMMENDATIONS subject to de novo review on objection (confirm the district judge's adoption/modification before relying on a recommended outcome; nondispositive referrals are reviewed only for clear error) -- and (b) her own 636(c)/duty civil docket (Social Security appeals, prisoner civil rights) where her orders are final. Before the bench she was a career law clerk to District Judge Maryellen Noreika (2018-2024) and an MNAT patent/Hatch-Waxman associate.
“Ms. Tennyson has been a career law clerk for the Honorable Maryellen Noreika, United States District Judge, District of Delaware since October 2018. She previously worked as an associate in the intellectual property group at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP. Her work there focused on patent litigation, particularly Hatch-Waxman cases and matters involving the chemical arts.”
The reviewed record does not include the text of Tennyson's 34-page Daedalus patent recommendation, so that disposition is supported by the district judge's adoption order and does not contribute reasoning detail. Her later 19-page recommendation in the Astellas/Ascent matter is available in full and supports the reasoning described here.
“REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 15 Motion to Dismiss. ... Signed by Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson on 7/31/2025.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 33) is ADOPTED IN PART. Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.I. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Sua sponte prisoner-civil-rights screening recommendation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Tennyson recommended dismissal, and Chief Judge Connolly adopted the recommendation in full on April 8, 2025: 'Magistrate Tennyson's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 12) is ADOPTED.' The complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to the individual defendants Carter, Banya, and Jolly, with leave to amend, and with prejudice as to JTVCC. The recommendation was filed March 17 and adopted 22 days later without objections.
“Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims of inequitable conduct and to strike the related affirmative defenses, D.I. 227, is granted-in-part and denied-in-part as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, D.I. 293.”
“The Court therefore recommends striking Ascent's sixth and tenth affirmative defenses from its Amended Answer... The Court recommends that Astellas's motion to strike Ascent's eighth affirmative defense be denied.”
“Magistrate Judge Tennyson denied both motions in relevant part... She denied the first motion because Ascent 'did not move with sufficient diligence to add the '780 patent counterclaims and related affirmative defenses and that Ascent unduly delayed in attempting to do so.'”
“Weeks later, she denied the second motion on procedural and substantive grounds... Procedurally, Ascent failed to submit the deposition transcripts containing the purported new testimony that inspired the amendment... Substantively, changing Ascent's inequitable conduct theory after the close of fact discovery would delay the litigation and prejudice Astellas.”
“Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rachel DeLoache Williams's ... request for an order compelling Defendant Netflix, Inc. ... to produce various documents exchanged between Netflix attorneys and certain third parties ... For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.”
“CF Taurus's motion to quash the subpoena ... and to vacate the order granting discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 1782 (D.I. 16), as well as Petitioners' cross-motion to compel compliance with the subpoena (D.I. 21). For the reasons set forth below, CF Taurus's motion is DENIED”
“and Petitioners' cross-motion is GRANTED as MODIFIED... The Court will therefore exercise its discretion and limit Petitioners' request as follows: CF Taurus shall produce all documents in its possession, custody or control that are communications ... with the Therium Group ... relating to an attempt to solicit investment in any of the Sulu Claimants' arbitration and enforcement proceedings.”
Put Judge Tennyson's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Tennyson actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Tennyson's own signed orders and cites them.