🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Leonard Philip Stark

United States District Court for the District of Delaware district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 31 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.
Motion for reargument (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, Hartford’s motion is DENIED.”

Mullin v. Sussex County
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 7) is DENIED.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 20) is GRANTED.”

Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Adobe’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement (D.I. 224) is GRANTED.”

Marnavi S.p.A. v. Keehan
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“The Keehans’ motion to dismiss (D.I. 68) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Moot / procedural

“The Keehans’ motion for summary judgment (D.I. 153) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“APC’s motion for summary judgment (D.I. 156) is GRANTED.”

Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“(1) Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 5) is DENIED as moot.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted in part

“is GRANTED with respect to the inducement counterclaims based on pre-filing conduct and DENIED in all other respects.”

St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion.”

Jam Transportation Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 15) is DENIED.”

buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Google Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (D.I. 31) IS GRANTED.”

Gerbitz v. ING Bank, fsb
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint and for More Definite Statement (D.I. 8) is GRANTED with respect to Jeffery Gerbitz’s (‘Plaintiff’) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”

GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 8) is DENIED.”

ReefEdge Networks, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, Juniper’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Willful infringement and pre-suit induced infringement will be dismissed from this case.”

Warner Chilcott Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (D.I.330) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Moot / procedural

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (D.I.303) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement (D.I.333) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Nature-of-suit mix from the 20-case initial-assignment cohort (filed August-September 2010, all terminated). This early cohort is heavy on prisoner and civil-rights filings and understates the patent share that later dominated his docket.

Put Judge Stark's record to work

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

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