Jennifer L. Hall
How Judge Hall rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hall
Jennifer Lynne Hall is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hall received a commission on January 4, 2024.
Judge Hall's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hall, 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.
- Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Protective Order Disputes ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Non-Patent - No ADR ↗
Key rules
Discovery
The discovery dispute teleconference form calls for a verbal meet and confer involving Delaware and lead counsel for each party.
“The following attorneys, including at least one Delaware Counsel and at least one Lead Counsel per party, participated in a verbal meet-and-confer (in person and/or by telephone) on the following date(s): [LIST DATE(S)].”
Discovery
The sample patent scheduling order calls for initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures within five days of entry unless the parties agree otherwise.
“Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the parties shall make their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) within five days of the date the Court enters this Order.”
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 Hall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Apple v. Masimo, she adopted Apple’s proposed construction of “biosensor module” because the patent specification supported its wording. She observed that the parties’ competing formulations did not clearly reveal a real dispute over claim scope.
“But Apple’s proposal is grounded in the language of the specification, so it will be adopted.”
In Jones v. Capiro, she granted summary judgment to a consulting witness sued over involuntary treatment. The plaintiff supplied no evidence that the witness treated or medicated him, and his testimony in Delaware Superior Court was immune from damages liability under Section 1983.
“Defendant’s testimony before the Delaware Superior Court is entitled to immunity from damages liability under § 1983.”
Procedural preferences
In Apple v. Masimo, she denied Masimo’s second-ranked motion for summary judgment of noninfringement under the scheduling order after denying its first-ranked motion. She also found that the second motion failed on the merits.
“the Scheduling Order dictates that the present summary judgment motion—Masimo’s second-ranked motion—be denied. The motion will also be denied for the independent reason that it fails on the merits.”
In TransPerfect Holdings v. Pincus, Hall dismissed a time-barred complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend. Amendment could not cure the limitations defect, and repeat litigation over the auction would prejudice the defendants.
“allowing amendment in these circumstances would be inequitable and prejudicial to Defendants.”
In Tstone IP v. Zoom, she denied transfer to California after weighing witness and convenience factors and preserving the plaintiff’s choice of Delaware. She also denied discovery requested solely to oppose transfer once that motion failed.
“Plaintiff’s choice to file suit in Delaware should not be disturbed.”
Cautions
Recently elevated from Magistrate Judge (district-judge commission January 4, 2024). Her record straddles the two roles — in TransPerfect she authored the magistrate-judge Report and Recommendation and signed the final district-judge dismissal on the same docket. Verify the signer's stated role ("U.S. Magistrate Judge" versus "U.S. District Judge") on every order before attributing a final ruling to her.
“The Scheduling Order entered by the Court (by me, acting as a Magistrate Judge) ...”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint (D.I. 1) will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the above reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 52) will be GRANTED.”
“Masimo's motion for summary judgment (C.A. No. 22-1377, D.I. 454) is DENIED.”
District-judge-era Markman opinion construing Apple's utility-patent terms after the matters were reassigned to Hall in January 2024. The opinion resolved claim construction rather than a party motion. Hall construes only terms presenting a genuine dispute and only as far as needed, stating, 'I won't call it a dispute because I'm not sure if there is a real dispute over claim scope,' and adopting a construction 'grounded in the language of the specification' while rejecting proposals that introduce ambiguity or read out disclosed embodiments.
“VitalCore's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 21) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“Centurion's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 25) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“Centene's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 27) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 53) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“Centurion's Motion to Strike (D.I. 23) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Sean Tu's Motion to Dismiss or Quash for Improper Service (D.I. 66) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Phuong D. Vo a/k/ Katie Vo's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 41) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Jin Gao's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service and Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 44) is DENIED.”
“Defendants Avilar Therapeutics, Inc. and RA Capital Management GP, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 192) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Biohaven Therapeutics Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims (D.I. 262) and Plaintiff Yale University's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims (D.I. 264) (collectively, the ‘Motions’) are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that CogniPower's Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Anker's Motion to Dismiss or Stay is GRANTED-IN-PART insofar as it requests a stay of Anker II.”
“Now pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 17, 18.) For the reasons summarized below, the motion is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R (D.I. 45) are OVERRULED, the R&R issued on July 31, 2025 (D.I. 39) is ADOPTED, and Defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 24) is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 52) will be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration/Reargument of the Court's December 19, 2023, Order (D.I. 87) is therefore DENIED.”
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 | 42 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 7 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 44 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 42 | 44 |
| Sep 2025 | 28 | 39 |
| Mar 2025 | 27 | 29 |
| Sep 2024 | 37 | 30 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 33 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Hall: 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 Hall with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hall's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace