Gregory B. Williams
How Judge Williams rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Williams
Gregory Brian Williams is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Williams received a commission on September 1, 2022.
Judge Williams's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Williams, 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.
- Trial Procedures ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Responses to Defense Motions in Criminal Cases before Judge Williams ↗
- Sample Civil Non-Patent Voir Dire.pdf ↗
- Sample Civil - Patent Voir Dire.pdf ↗
- Sample Criminal Jury Trial Voir Dire.pdf ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Non-Patent - Jury Trial.pdf ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent NON-ANDA Jury Trial.pdf ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Non-Patent - Bench Trial.pdf ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent ANDA Bench Trial.pdf ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Send trial correspondence through Delaware counsel to the GBW Civil mailbox.
“Any and all trial correspondence should be via Delaware counsel through the GBW Civil mailbox ([email protected]).”
Motions
Absent a case-specific order, the United States must respond to a criminal defendant’s pretrial motion within 21 calendar days.
“Whenever a Defendant files a pretrial motion and there is no case- specific Court Order establishing a timetable for a response from the United States, the United States shall file a response no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date that the Defendant’s motion was filed;”
Trial
In a jury trial, parties must arrange and pay for juror lunches and snacks while removing identifying material.
“The parties shall pay for and coordinate ordering and delivering juror lunches and snacks during the trial. The parties are reminded to remove any self-identifying materials from the juror lunches and snacks to maintain anonymity.”
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 Williams decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a 12(b)(6) for willful patent infringement, a pre-suit notice letter that names the patent, the accused product, and why it infringes, coupled with continued sales, is what carries the claim past the pleading stage; mere notice/knowledge of the patent (examiner citation, ex parte reexam request) is not enough.
“A patentee meets its burden at the pleading stage to show that the defendant knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement when the patentee pleads facts indicating that (1) the patentee sent one or more notice letters identifying the 'relevant patents,' 'the accused products,' and 'why it was that the product infringes the patents,' and (2) the 'alleged infringer continued to engage in infringing activities.'”
In a contract dispute, a plaintiff can plead on information and belief where the relationship facts (e.g. whether an assignment occurred) are peculiarly within the defendants' control and the defendants offer only a general denial.
“Where, as here, Defendants 'have provided only a general denial ... rather than facts about the organization and relationships between the various defendant entities,' this Court has allowed allegations to be made by a plaintiff under information and belief.”
In Huckabee v. Meta, he found Meta’s alleged algorithmic ordering to be its own expression for Section 230 purposes, but dismissed the claims with prejudice because the complaint lacked necessary allegations of fault.
“These decisions are Meta's, as they were TikTok's, 'own expressive activit[ies]' and 'first-party speech.' ... Such speech therefore renders Meta an 'information content provider' and not immune to the Governor's claims.”
In Nippon Shinyaku v. Sarepta Therapeutics, he rejected an indefiniteness challenge to a patent claim term because the challenger had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that skilled artisans lacked reasonable certainty about its scope.
“NS has not met its burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 'in which uracil bases are thymine bases' term is indefinite”
In TQ Delta v. DISH, he rejected a patent eligibility challenge to the 243 patent because its claim described a specific improvement to the operation of a multicarrier transceiver. In the same order, he found the 158 patent ineligible because its asserted reduction in peak-to-average power ratio was absent from the claim language.
“directed to a specific technological solution that improves the functionality of the multicarrier”
Procedural preferences
Williams commits on the record to a target ruling window for dispositive motions, roughly 60 business days from oral argument, as his general practice.
“The Court heard oral argument on FuboTV's motion to dismiss after it was fully-briefed and, consistent with its general practice, informed the parties at that hearing that the Court would attempt to issue a ruling on FuboTV's motion to dismiss within sixty (60) business days.”
In EIS v. IntiHealth, he denied summary judgment on patent-marking compliance because the sufficiency of Novoluto's virtual marking presented factual questions unsuited to resolution on that motion.
“Although Novoluto's virtual marking may prove insufficient ... diving into the factual morass of evaluating the sufficiency of Novoluto's virtual marking is not a task appropriate for the Court at the summary judgment stage.”
In Par Pharmaceutical v. Baxter Healthcare, he reviewed Judge Fallon's report and recommendation de novo, adopted it in full, and overruled the defendant's objections.
“Upon the Court's de novo review of Judge Fallon's Report, (D.I. 52), Defendant's Objections, (D.I. 69), and Plaintiffs' Response, (D.I. 77), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation ... is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. Defendant's Objections ... are OVERRULED”
In Nexus Pharmaceuticals v. Exela Pharma Sciences, he declined to hunt through the briefs for an argument on a summary-judgment issue, invoking the observation that judges should not search for 'truffles buried in briefs.'
“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”
Cautions
For willful infringement, Williams adopts the stricter side of the D. Delaware split: the complaint itself cannot supply the defendant's actionable knowledge, so do not rest a willfulness theory on post-suit knowledge from the pleading.
“this Court adopts the view that '[t]he complaint itself cannot serve as the basis for a defendant's actionable knowledge' for a willful infringement claim.”
In Huckabee v. Meta, he rejected Meta's Section 230 defense but dismissed the claims with prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege scienter; he disregarded a conclusory recital of actual malice.
“Governor Huckabee fails to allege that Meta had the requisite scienter. ... the Court will disregard this recital of scienter, which is itself a legal conclusion, because it is a 'mere conclusory statement[].'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Commerce's Partial Motion to Dismiss Love's Willful Infringement Allegations (Amended Counterclaims I, II, III, IV, V, and VI) is DENIED-IN-PART with respect to amended Counterclaim I. ... is GRANTED-IN-PART with respect to amended Counterclaims II, III, IV, V, and VI. Love's Amended Counterclaims II, III, IV, V, and VI are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Pending before the Court is Defendant NEWITY LLC's (‘NEWITY’) Motion to Dismiss ... Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ... For the reasons below, the Court will DENY the Motion to Dismiss.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, (D.I. 22), is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (D.I. 17), is DENIED.”
“Dish's Motion For Leave To File A First Amended Complaint (D.I. 33) is GRANTED.”
“FuboTV's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim (D.I. 10) is DENIED-AS-MOOT without prejudice to FuboTV's ability to raise at summary judgment any remaining § 101 issues.”
“the Court denies EIS's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Damages.”
“The Court also denies Novoluto's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Meta's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice”
“NS has not met its burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 'in which uracil bases are thymine bases' term is indefinite”
“The Court grants dismissal of all claims of contributory infringement in Count I and Count II, with leave for Lindis to Amend. Amgen's Motion to Dismiss Count I and Count II is otherwise denied. ... Amgen's Motion to Dismiss Count III ... is GRANTED [with prejudice].”
“GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Ford's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 23) ... GRANTED without prejudice and with leave for Plaintiffs to amend as to: (1) Plaintiffs' Express Warranty Claims (2) Plaintiffs Ptaszek and Drotos' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims; and (3) Plaintiffs' claims seeking equitable relief ... GRANTED with prejudice as to Plaintiffs' claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and DENIED without prejudice as to Plaintiffs' California common law omission claims”
“Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Expert Fees is DENIED”
“Natera's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony (D.I. 428) is DENIED-IN-PART”
“Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I 429) is DENIED-IN-PART”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter at D.I. 16 . Signed by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 4/29/2025.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload mix is illustrative, drawn from the docket-record enumeration rows, not a measured denominator.
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 | 107 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 46 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 107 | 46 |
| Sep 2025 | 119 | 48 |
| Mar 2025 | 77 | 39 |
| Sep 2024 | 46 | 33 |
| Mar 2024 | 42 | 32 |
| Sep 2023 | 56 | 39 |
| Mar 2023 | 51 | 37 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 25 |
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 Williams: 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 Williams with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Williams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace