Key Points

• A visiting federal judge's new standing orders for patent cases in the District of New Jersey depart materially from the DNJ Local Patent Rules — and closely track the procedures used by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly in the District of Delaware.
• Practitioners appearing before Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves should pay particular attention to differences in claim construction procedures and, in Hatch-Waxman cases, to strict numerical limits on asserted claims and prior art references.

Patent litigators in the District of New Jersey have a new set of procedures to learn. On May 7, 2026, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the United States Court of International Trade — sitting by designation in the DNJ — issued a Standing Order and accompanying form scheduling orders that will govern all patent cases assigned to her.

For practitioners accustomed to the DNJ Local Patent Rules, the most important thing to know is this: Judge Choe-Groves' orders appear closely modeled on the practices of Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, where she has also sat by designation since 2023. The result is a case-management framework that differs from the DNJ default in several significant respects, particularly around claim construction and limits on asserted claims and prior art.

This alert provides a brief overview of the form scheduling orders, highlights key similarities to Chief Judge Connolly's approach, and identifies the most important differences from the DNJ Local Patent Rules.

Sitting by Designation in the DNJ

Designations of judges to other districts are most commonly used to address heavy caseloads or judicial vacancies and enable Article III judges from other federal courts to take on cases in districts where the need exists. Several judges are currently sitting by designation in the District of New Jersey, though it appears that only Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania joins Judge Choe-Groves as current visiting judges handling patent cases.

Judge Choe-Groves has also sat by designation in the District of Delaware since 2023, as well as the District of Idaho. Her intellectual property background — including service as Senior Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Executive Office of the President of the United States and as Chair of the Special 301 Committee for the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as well as time in private practice specializing in intellectual property litigation — brings significant subject-matter expertise to the patent docket.

General Adoption of Local Rules

As a threshold matter, Judge Choe-Groves' Standing Order expressly adopts the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, including Local Patent Rule 9.3. This means that the DNJ Local Patent Rules remain the baseline framework for patent cases before her, and the individual preferences and scheduling orders she has issued operate as supplements or modifications to those rules.

Practitioners familiar with patent litigation before Chief Judge Connolly in Delaware will find Judge Choe-Groves' scheduling orders (here and here) highly similar in structure and substance. Notably, some of these parallels differ from what practitioners may be accustomed to under the Local Patent Rules in the District of New Jersey. Two key substantive issues are discussed below.

Claim Construction

Both Judge Choe-Groves and Chief Judge Connolly require parties to exchange a list of claim terms they believe require construction and then to subsequently prepare a Joint Claim Construction Chart identifying intrinsic evidence in support of their construction. The chart is submitted to the Court. In contrast, DNJ Local Patent Rules 4.1 and 4.2 require exchanges of extrinsic evidence along with the claim terms and intrinsic evidence. LPR 4.3 then requires a joint claim construction statement containing information from these exchanges (and other information) to be filed.

Both judges also require the parties to serve (but not file) the following claim construction briefs: (1) plaintiff’s opening brief, (2) defendant’s answering brief, (3) plaintiff’s reply brief, and (4) defendant’s sur-reply brief. Each brief has specified word limits. The parties must then file a Joint Claim Construction Brief in which the parties compile their respective positions on each disputed claim term into a single document. In contrast, DNJ Local Patent Rule 4.5 requires that the parties “contemporaneously file and serve” Opening Markman briefs and then Responsive Markman briefs 60 days later, with page limits governed by those applicable to all briefs.

Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References

In Hatch-Waxman cases, Judge Choe-Groves adopts the same numerical limits on asserted claims and prior art references used by Chief Judge Connolly.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, plaintiffs may initially assert no more than 10 claims of any one patent and no more than 32 claims in total. Defendants may initially identify no more than 12 prior art references for any one patent and no more than 30 prior art references in total. No later than 28 days after the Court issues a claim construction order, these limits narrow further: defendants must reduce to no more than six prior art references per patent and 20 total references. Then, no later than 14 days after defendant’s narrowing disclosure, plaintiffs must reduce to no more than five claims per patent and 16 total asserted claims. (Judge Choe-Groves’ standing order for non-ANDA patent cases does not include specific narrowing limitations on the number of claims or prior art references that may be asserted by the parties.)

By contrast, the DNJ Local Patent Rules do not impose any comparable numerical limits in ANDA cases. Although there are specific rules governing timing and content of disclosure of asserted claims and contentions for validity/invalidity and infringement/non-infringement (see LPR 3.6) there is no cap on the number of claims that may be asserted or the number of prior art references that may be identified. Rather, such narrowing must be negotiated, if at all, on a case-by-case basis between the parties or raised to the Court for resolution.

Takeaways

Judge Choe-Groves' Standing Order and associated form scheduling orders reflect a patent case management philosophy closely aligned with that of Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware, reflecting Judge Choe-Groves’ experience from designation to that court. Practitioners appearing before Judge Choe-Groves in the District of New Jersey should be prepared to comply with these procedures, which differ in several respects from the default Local Patent Rules.

Paul W. Kalish and Jonathan J. Madara are members of the IP Litigation team in Fox Rothschild’s Princeton, NJ office and write about patent litigation decisions in the District of New Jersey. Contact Paul at pkalish@foxrothschild.com or 609.895.6751 and Jonathan at jmadara@foxrothschild.com or 609.844.7428.

This information is intended to inform firm clients and friends about legal developments, including the decisions of courts and administrative bodies. Nothing in this alert should be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Readers should not act upon the information contained in this alert without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily this law firm or its clients.