Richard G. Andrews
How Judge Andrews rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Andrews
Richard Gibson Andrews is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Andrews received a commission on November 7, 2011. Judge Andrews assumed senior status on December 31, 2023.
Judge Andrews's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Andrews, 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.
- Standing Order Regarding Responses to Defense Motions in Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order Regarding Briefing in All Cases ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Non-Patent (Rev. 4/12) ↗
- Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent (Rev. 2/6/23) ↗
- Model Criminal Voir Dire (Rev. 5/13) ↗
- Sample Voir Dire - Non-Patent (Rev. 5/13) ↗
- Sample Voir Dire - Patent (Rev. 5/13) ↗
- Jury Verdict - Non-Patent (Rev. 7/13) ↗
Key rules
Filing
For double-spaced submissions, counsel may substitute 250 words per allowed page and must certify the count.
“For all double-spaced submissions where there are page limits 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 must be attached as part of the submission.”
Motions
Absent a case-specific order, the United States must respond to a criminal defendant’s pretrial motion within 21 calendar days.
“Whenever a Defendant files a pretrial motion and there is no case-specific Court Order establishing a timetable for a response from the United States, the United States shall file a response no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date that the Defendant's motion was filed;”
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 Andrews decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Barry v. SeaSpine Holdings, he denied dismissal at Alice step one because the claimed 'en bloc derotation' was a concrete surgical procedure rather than an abstract idea.
“I am not convinced that 'en bloc derotation' is an abstract idea as it is a concrete surgical procedure, not a mental process or mathematical algorithm.”
In RSB Spine v. DePuy Synthes Sales, he granted anticipation summary judgment because the plaintiff's proposed disputes recast claim-construction arguments he had already rejected.
“The only genuine disputes Plaintiff offers are disputes with my claim construction. Plaintiff does not provide new arguments, but rather recasts arguments I have already ruled against.”
In Sprint v. Atlantic Broadband Finance, he granted summary judgment against willful infringement because Sprint identified no evidence that the defendant knew of the asserted patents before expiration.
“Sprint's statement of facts is noteworthy for what it does not say. Not once does Sprint assert that it has any evidence that ABB knew of any of the currently asserted patents before they expired.”
Procedural preferences
In Sprint v. Cequel Communications, he deemed a harm argument waived under District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(2) because Sprint first raised it in its reply brief.
“This argument -- that reliance requires a showing of harm ... -- was not made in Sprint's opening brief. ... It is therefore waived. See, e.g., D. Del. R. 7.1.3(c)(2).”
In Sprint v. Cequel Communications, he distinguished equitable estoppel from acquiescence and waiver, holding that silence alone did not establish acquiescence or waiver.
“Silence, even misleading silence, is not enough for acquiescence and waiver.”
In Waters v. Delaware Department of Public Safety, he denied the plaintiff's Daubert motion but struck conclusory police-practice expert reports on his own initiative because they did not adequately disclose the bases for their opinions under Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
“the meat of the opinions is that what the officers did 'was consistent with contemporary police training, policy and practice,' usually with no explanation at all about what 'contemporary police training, policy and practice' is ... This is not an adequate disclosure.”
In the protective-order objection, he rejected a collateral-purpose argument raised for the first time on objection because the required certification did not identify it or show good cause.
“The certification requirement is not some arcane requirement. It is a practical one, designed to make referrals to magistrate judges as efficient as the referral system can be.”
In Empower Brands v. Tristar, he denied a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel despite a prior concurrent conflict. The firm used separate teams and an ethical wall, and he found little risk of misuse of confidential information and substantial prejudice from removing the plaintiffs’ longtime counsel.
“there is a very low likelihood that any confidential information”
Cautions
In Sprint v. Charter Communications, he denied Sprint's motion for summary judgment on inequitable conduct because materiality and intent presented genuine factual disputes.
“Granting summary judgment on inequitable conduct 'is permissible, but uncommon,' in light of the 'inherently factual nature of the issue of intent.'”
Senior status since 2023-12-31: still actively hears the patent docket, but verify he is the signer on post-2023 orders (ded cases also reassign among Connolly, Noreika, Williams, Hall). Bio fact, not a ruling.
“Andrews assumed senior status on December 31, 2023.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted for the deliberate indifference to medical need and false arrest § 1983 claims, and, as to Defendants Osgood and Holl, for the excessive force § 1983 claim and the state law claims for battery and gross or wanton negligence. Summary judgment is denied for the excessive force § 1983 claim and for the state law claims of battery and gross or wanton negligence against McCann.”
“Plaintiff's motion to exclude Defendants' expert witnesses is denied, but the expert reports are struck. Defendants are granted leave to amend their expert witness reports, within twenty-one days.”
“Before me is Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. (D.I. 9)... For the reasons that follow, I will DENY the motion.”
“For the following reasons, Sprint's motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”
“Defendant ABB's motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement (D.I. 280) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to claims 9 and 12 of the '234 patent is GRANTED.”
“As there are genuine issues of material fact and a reasonable fact finder could find for Defendants, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct (D.I. 463...) is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, SynKloud's motion to dismiss is granted-in-part and denied-in-part.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“I therefore GRANT Defendants' motions to dismiss. Dismissal is without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's summary judgment and Daubert motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant's summary judgment and Daubert motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“MEMORANDUM ORDER: The partial motion to dismiss (D.I. 18) is GRANTED”
“The motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) is DENIED as it applies to any arguments regarding infringing activity. The motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the willfulness allegations. The motion to dismiss (D.I. 13) is GRANTED as to Count II. Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
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 | 44 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 2 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 44 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 21 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 16 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 16 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 27 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 37 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 50 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 46 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 37 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 48 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 32 |
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 Andrews: 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 Andrews with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Andrews, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Andrews's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace