Maryellen Noreika

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 11 signed orders read

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.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

James v. United States
1:24-cv-00942-MN · 2025-09-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 21) and dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (D.I. 1) with prejudice.”

Spahr v. Collins
1:19-cv-00113-MN · 2022-08-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 68) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART”

Apex Clearing Corp. v. Axos Financial Inc.
1:19-cv-02066-MN · 2021-09-24
Motion to exclude (plaintiff) Denied

“Apex's Motion to Exclude (D.I 98) is DENIED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Axos Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I 100) is DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Axos Financial, Inc. and Axos Clearing LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 104) is DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART.”

Sandbox Software, LLC v. 18Birdies, LLC
1:18-cv-01649-MN · 2019-06-19
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The claims of the '803 patent are directed to patent ineligible subject matter and I will grant defendant's motion to dismiss.”

Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant's Motion to Transfer (D.I. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
1:19-cv-01868-MN · 2021-06-24
Motion for claim construction (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.”

Schramm v. Mayrack
1:22-cv-01443-MN · 2025-09-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court will DENY Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and GRANT”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (D.I. 86) and GRANT Defendants’ motion for summary”

Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC
1:18-cv-01683-MN · 2025-11-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Court will GRANT summary judgment of no infringement.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Summary Judgment of Invalidity based on Indefiniteness (D.I. 176) are DENIED without”

Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company v. Israel
1:24-cv-01385-MN · 2026-03-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“both Motions will be granted-in-part and denied-in-part.”

Vial v. Mayrack
1:24-cv-01313-MN · 2026-03-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 42) is DENIED.”

Broomer v. MacNamara
1:24-cv-01037-MN · 2026-03-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied”

Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Prime Capital Investment Advisors, LLC
1:25-cv-01412-MN · 2026-07-08
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the Court will preliminarily enjoin Prime (in part).”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The caseload mix is read from the docket records (nature of suit, cause, jurisdiction type), not a full authoritative baseline.

Put Judge Noreika's record to work

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

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