Maryellen Noreika
How Judge Noreika rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Noreika
Maryellen Noreika is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Noreika received a commission on August 9, 2018.
Judge Noreika's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Noreika, 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.
- Preferences and Procedures Civil Cases (Revised 9/9/2019) ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Responses and Replies to Motions in Criminal Cases (revised 5/22/2025) ↗
- In Re: Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies of Sealed Filings in CIVIL Matters ↗
- Standing Order Re Filing of Exhibits - Must be Grouped ↗
- Sample Joint Claim Chart ↗
- Sample Voir Dire ↗
- Patent Scheduling Order - ANDA (Revised 4/5/2021) ↗
- Patent Scheduling Order - Non-ANDA (Revised 4/5/2021) ↗
- Scheduling Order - Non-Patent Bench Trial (Revised 4/5/2021) ↗
- Scheduling Order - Non-Patent Jury Trial (Revised 4/5/2021) ↗
- Standing Order Regarding January 2019 Scheduling Orders ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Joint Claim Charts ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Pretrial Order form and Time to File Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Verdict Sheets ↗
Key rules
Filing
Provide a redline of every amended pleading; attach it to the stipulation or motion unless the amendment is as of course.
“A redlined version of any amended pleading shall be provided to the Court regardless of whether the amendment is by matter of course, stipulation, or motion. If by matter of course, counsel shall email a PDF version of the amended pleading to the Court’s judicial administrator, Diana Welham, at [email protected]. Otherwise, the redlined version shall be attached to the stipulation or motion.”
Filing
Where a page limit applies, a double-spaced submission may use 250 words per page with a word-count certification.
“Where page limits are specified by Order or Rule, the parties may alternatively use a word count limit. The word count limit is 250 words per page and shall not exceed the total word count for the page limit specified in the Order or Rule. For example, if the page limit specified is 20 pages, the maximum number of words for the submission is 5,000 (20 x 250). To the extent that a word count is used, a certification as to the total number of words”
Filing
Group e-filed exhibits in one PDF when possible; otherwise use as few PDFs as possible.
“all exhibits e-filed in a case assigned to Judge Noreika, under seal or publicly, as part of a brief, appendix, declaration, or otherwise, shall be, when possible, grouped together into one PDF for filing. To the extent a single PDF is too large for filing, the exhibits shall be grouped into as few PDFs as possible.”
Motions
Absent a case-specific order, respond to criminal pretrial or post-trial motions within 21 calendar days and file any reply within ten days of the response.
“Whenever a pre-trial or post-trial motion is filed and there is no case-specific Court Order establishing a timetable for a response, the opposing party shall file a response no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date that the motion was filed. A reply1, if any, shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days from the date the response was filed;”
Sealing
Sealed civil courtesy copies need not be placed in sealed envelopes.
“it is no longer required that courtesy copies of sealed civil filings be placed in sealed envelopes. Sealed courtesy copies may, however, be placed in sealed envelopes at the discretion of counsel.”
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 Noreika decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sandbox Software v. 18Birdies, she granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on patent eligibility. She found that claims for playing and tracking a multiplayer game described an abstract form of organizing human activity using generic mobile devices and lacked an inventive concept.
“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”
In Spahr v. Collins, Noreika granted qualified immunity on the substantive due process claims because the plaintiffs did not identify a clearly established right at the required level of specificity.
“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
In Sentient Sensors v. Cypress, Noreika denied a late request for further construction of 'embedded' after extensive claim-construction proceedings. She left any needed supplemental construction for the pretrial conference while keeping the trial date.
“Deciding another claim construction dispute at this stage in the proceeding would not be an efficient use of the Court’s time.”
In Sandbox Software v. 18Birdies, she announced her patent-eligibility ruling from the bench after briefing, additional submissions, and oral argument. The later written order set out the governing standard and reproduced her hearing remarks.
“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”
In United States v. Mott, she denied a post-trial motion to reopen evidence more than a month after trial. The proposed emails had been available earlier and carried little probative value; she emphasized the need for finality.
“Trials are not rolling, stop-and-start hearings that resume whenever one party sees an advantage. Finality is vital.”
Cautions
In Apex Clearing v. Axos, Noreika denied summary judgment on trademark confusion and disgorgement because material factual disputes remained. She granted summary judgment only on actual damages, which the plaintiff did not substantiate.
“This case is not the exception. Genuine issues of material fact as to the similarity of the marks, the strength of the marks, the intent of Defendant in adopting their marks, as well as other Lapp factors exist, and the Court will deny the motion.”
In a workplace-injury indemnity dispute, she enforced the employer’s workers’ compensation protection and declined to enlarge its narrow contract-based exceptions. The third-party complaints failed without a pleaded contractual basis that fit those exceptions.
“The third-party plaintiffs would have this Court expand those exceptions. This Court will not do so.”
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.”
“the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and GRANT”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (D.I. 86) and GRANT Defendants’ motion for summary”
“Court will GRANT summary judgment of no infringement.”
“Summary Judgment of Invalidity based on Indefiniteness (D.I. 176) are DENIED without”
“both Motions will be granted-in-part and denied-in-part.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 42) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied”
“the Court will preliminarily enjoin Prime (in part).”
“Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 15) is DENIED and the Commissioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 19) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The docket enumeration includes patent, trademark, civil-rights, and criminal matters; the motion timeline here comes from one analyzed docket and cannot quantify the courtwide mix.
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 | 4 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 24 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 22 |
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 Noreika: 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 Noreika with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Noreika, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Noreika's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace