Maryellen Noreika
How Judge Noreika decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Resolves 35 U.S.C. 101 patent eligibility at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage where claims recite an abstract idea (often 'organizing human activity') performed on generic computers/mobile devices with no inventive concept; compares the claims to the body of Federal Circuit 101 decisions.
“when viewed as a whole, the claim is directed to the abstract idea of playing a multiplayer game and keeping track of its progress, again, a form of organizing human activity. ... there is, thus, no inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea ... into something patent eligible”
On qualified immunity she holds the plaintiff to the burden of identifying a clearly established right at the proper level of specificity; a right defined 'at a high level of generality' will not defeat immunity.
“Ultimately, it is Plaintiff's job to identify a clearly established right that was violated at the proper level of specificity. Because Plaintiffs have not done so, the Court grants Defendants' motion on the substantive due process claims.”
Procedural preferences
Firm patent case manager: will not reopen claim construction late in the case, and will not let a party inject a new, untimely position on the eve of trial (she struck a summary-judgment motion built on an untimely non-infringement position and shifted the cost of the delay onto the offending party).
“Cypress has had ample opportunity ... to raise the claim construction issue ... Deciding another claim construction dispute at this stage in the proceeding would not be an efficient use of the Court's time.”
Often rules from the bench after full briefing and oral argument, then issues a short written order incorporating her standing legal standard rather than a long opinion -- so the reasoning lives in the hearing transcript.
“I will not be issuing written opinions, but I will issue an order that states my ruling. ... we have followed a full process for making the decisions”
Cautions
Trademark/likelihood-of-confusion and disgorgement questions are fact-intensive and she will rarely grant summary judgment on them; expect these to go to trial.
“This determination is 'a fact-intensive inquiry' and so 'cannot typically be decided at the summary judgment stage.' ... This case is not the exception.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for claim construction N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to transfer venue N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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 Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 21) and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (D.I. 1) with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 68) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”
“Apex's Motion to Exclude (D.I 98) is DENIED”
“Axos Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I 100) is DENIED”
“Axos Financial, Inc. and Axos Clearing LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 104) is DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART.”
“The claims of the '803 patent are directed to patent ineligible subject matter and I will grant defendant's motion to dismiss.”
“Defendant's Motion to Transfer (D.I. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Caseload read from search_dockets rows (nature_of_suit/cause/jurisdiction_type), not a full IDB baseline.