Richard G. Andrews
How Judge Andrews decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Section 101 / Alice step one: declines to find abstractness where a claim recites a concrete physical procedure or specifies HOW a result is achieved, rather than merely the result. Frame eligibility around a specific structural/step configuration.
“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.”
Claim construction is dispositive and binding at summary judgment: he refuses expert opinions or arguments that contradict his construction and treats re-argument of construction as offering no genuine dispute of material fact.
“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.”
Willful infringement: demands affirmative evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and specific intent; generalized portfolio-awareness and 'priced-in risk' do not survive summary judgment.
“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
Strictly enforces D. Del. Local Rule 7.1.3(c)(2): an argument first raised in a reply brief is waived. Put the full case in the opening 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).”
Issue-by-issue, defense-by-defense disposition rather than a blended outcome, and holds movants to the correct (federal) legal standard; distinguishes equitable estoppel from acquiescence/waiver.
“Silence, even misleading silence, is not enough for acquiescence and waiver.”
Polices expert-report adequacy strictly under Rule 26(a)(2)(B): even when he denies a Daubert motion to exclude, he will sua sponte STRIKE conclusory expert reports that recite a conclusion ('consistent with contemporary police training and practice') without disclosing the underlying basis. Make the expert report state the facts, data, and reasoning, not just the bottom line.
“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.”
Cautions
Disfavors summary judgment on fact-intensive intent questions (inequitable conduct, willfulness): he will deny where a reasonable fact finder could find the contrary inference.
“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.”
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 = 5 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“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.”