Sherry R. Fallon
How Judge Fallon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She concluded that alleging a patent was essential to an industry standard, without connecting the defendant’s specific products to the asserted claims, did not adequately plead pre-suit knowledge of induced infringement.
“an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement.”
Contributory patent infringement requires identifying a component with no substantial non-infringing use. Pointing at an accused platform 'as a whole' without isolating a separate-and-distinct feature that has no substantial non-infringing use is fatal at the pleading stage.
“The amended complaint and affiliated infringement charts refer to the Gusto platform as a whole without identifying how any component part of the Gusto platform has 'no substantial non-infringing uses.'”
Procedural preferences
She applied Rule 12(g)(2) to bar defenses that were available but omitted from an earlier Rule 12 motion, holding that an amended complaint did not revive those arguments.
“Plaintiff's subsequent filing of the FAC and the SAC does not grant Defendants a fresh opportunity to revive arguments that were previously available to them, but that Defendants failed to press.”
She treated a pending pleadings-stage motion as moot once leave to file a superseding complaint was granted, resolving the motion procedurally without reaching its merits.
“the court recommends denying Defendants' partial motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot . . . in light of the court's granting the plaintiffs' subsequently filed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.”
Cautions
Fallon's reports and recommendations on referred matters remain advisory and are subject to district-court review. Her orders are final when all parties consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), including in consent Social Security appeals.
“This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends granting the Gusto's motion to dismiss without prejudice.”
“the court recommends denying defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and granting defendant's motion to stay.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the court DENY Defendants' partial motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice.”
“Therefore, the court recommends granting with prejudice the United States' motion to dismiss plaintiff's negligence and/or gross-negligence claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Therefore, the United States' motion to substitute party is granted.”
“Therefore, the court recommends granting plaintiff's motion to remand only his supplemental state law claims against GoDaddy, PayPal, and Shijil to the Delaware Superior Court.”
“I recommend that the court GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Vudu's motion to dismiss (D.I. 53) without prejudice as follows: a. GRANT Vudu's motion with respect to the FAC's induced infringement claims in Count VI; b. GRANT Vudu's motion with respect to the FAC's pre-suit induced infringement claims in Counts I-V and VII-XI; and c. DENY Vudu's motion with respect to the post-suit inducement claims in Counts I-V and VII-XI.”
“For the foregoing reasons, (1) Walker's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 13) is denied; and (2) the Commissioner's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 19) is granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel (D.I.183) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Specifically, defendant is ordered to produce a redacted version of the PowerPoint presentation referenced at Item Number 29 in the privilege log. (D.I. 183, Ex. E at 7) Plaintiffs' motion is denied in all other respects.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs moti'on to establish applicable substantive law is denied, and Defendants' motion to establish applicable substantive law is granted.”
“ISM's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART. Specifically: 1. ISM's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Rumanek's ADA/DPDEP retaliation claim; 2. ISM's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Rumanek's FMLA retaliation claim; and 3. ISM's motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Rumanek's Title VII/DDEA retaliation claim based on Rumanek's August 23, 2010 email threatening to file an EEOC complaint.”
“(1) Crawford's motion to strike (D.I. 167) is DENIED; and”
“(2) G & L's motion to strike and for sanctions (D.I.185) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”
“the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against TIAA-CREF on his claim for breach of contract for the amount due to him under the contract, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and (2) the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Pedrick and Roten on Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the court deny Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot (D.I. 30), and grant Defendants' motion to dismiss MONEC's claims in the first amended complaint for induced, contributory, and willful infringement of the reexamined '678 patent, without prejudice (D.I. 41).”
Put Judge Fallon's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Fallon actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Fallon's own signed orders and cites them.