Gregory B. Williams

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 16 signed orders read

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.”

Williams reads Section 230 of the CDA NARROWLY against platforms post-Anderson: a platform's own algorithmic ordering/curation of third-party content is its first-party speech, so Section 230 does not immunize it at the pleading stage -- but that only opens the door; the plaintiff must still plausibly plead every element (here scienter/malice/fault) or the claims fall anyway.

“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.”

On patent indefiniteness he holds the challenger to the clear-and-convincing standard and resolves disputed terms from the intrinsic record, declining to invalidate where a skilled artisan would understand the term's scope with reasonable certainty.

“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”

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.”

Williams prefers NOT to resolve disputed, fact-laden patent issues on summary judgment -- marking compliance, inequitable-conduct intent, written-description/new-matter -- treating them as jury questions; in this sample he denied or only granted-in-part every patent SJ motion and the cases proceeded to trial.

“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.”

He adopts magistrate-judge Reports and Recommendations on de novo review and will overrule objections that merely re-argue the merits; the magistrate bench (Fallon, Burke, Tennyson) does much of the substantive patent claim-construction and dispositive-motion screening work in his cases.

“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”

He follows a ranked-motions procedure and refuses to scour the record on a movant's behalf, granting summary judgment only where the opponent comes forward with no supporting evidence and otherwise leaving fact-laden disputes for trial.

“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.”

Even where Williams agrees a defense (e.g. Section 230) fails, he will still dismiss WITH PREJUDICE if the complaint does not plausibly plead an element and the plaintiff submits no draft amended complaint -- a conclusory recital of scienter or 'actual malice' is disregarded as a legal conclusion.

“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.

Hills Point Industries LLC d/b/a Gorilla Commerce v. Just Fur Love LLC
1:22-cv-01256-GBW · 2023-12-20
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

The Loan Source Inc. and The 1993 Steven D. Kravitz Family Trust v. NEWITY LLC and ACAP SME, LLC
1:22-cv-01255-GBW · 2023-09-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation
1:23-cv-00358-GBW-SRF · 2024-03-12
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunctive Relief, (D.I. 22), is DENIED.”

Judgment on pleadings (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (D.I. 17), is DENIED.”

DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v. FuboTV Media Inc.
1:23-cv-00986-GBW · 2024-05-21
Leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Dish's Motion For Leave To File A First Amended Complaint (D.I. 33) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“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.”

EIS, Inc. v. IntiHealth Ger GmbH (Novoluto GmbH counterclaim)
1:19-cv-01227-GBW · 2023-08-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court denies EIS's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Damages.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“The Court also denies Novoluto's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct.”

Huckabee v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
1:24-cv-00773-GBW · 2024-11-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Meta's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice”

Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
1:21-cv-01015-GBW · 2023-07-03
Claim construction (defendant) Denied

“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”

Lindis Biotech, GmbH v. Amgen, Inc.
1:22-cv-00035-GBW · 2024-03-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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].”

Bolton v. Ford Motor Co.
1:23-cv-00632-GBW · 2024-07-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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”

BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC
1:21-cv-00534-GBW · 2024-01-09
Attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Expert Fees is DENIED”

Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc.
1:20-cv-00125-GBW · 2023-02-06
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Natera's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony (D.I. 428) is DENIED-IN-PART”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I 429) is DENIED-IN-PART”

Fraud Free Transactions LLC v. Ping Identity Corporation
1:24-cv-01218-GBW · 2025-04-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.

Put Judge Williams's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Williams actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Williams's own signed orders and cites them.