Education: 1974: J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law; 1971: B.A., Lafayette College.

Career in Brief: 1991–present: US District Court for the District of New Jersey (2000–present: US District Judge; 1991–2000: US Magistrate Judge); 1978–1991: Partner, Schwartz, Pisano, Simon & Edelstein; 1974–1978: Assistant Deputy Public Defender, New Jersey Office of the Public Defender (Essex County).

What do you enjoy most about hearing patent infringement cases? I enjoy the variety of the subject matter, and I find it interesting to learn about the technology and the inventive process. Also, generally speaking, the attorneys in most of my patent cases are skilled, well-prepared and responsive.

What aspects of patent infringement cases do you find most challenging, and why? It has been my experience that patent cases are typically litigated quite aggressively. The relationship between opposing counsel often becomes needlessly contentious, making it difficult for parties to reach agreement on even the smallest of issues.

This means the court often is called upon to resolve more disputes in a patent litigation than in a typical non-patent case. For example, discovery disputes abound, and I see more appeals from magistrate judge decisions in patent cases than in any other type of case. As a result, patent cases often consume a disproportionate amount of judicial resources, which is unfortunate at a time when courts are seeing an ever-increasing caseload.

What have been the most significant developments in patent litigation during your time on the bench? I believe that one of the most important developments in patent litigation during my time on the bench has been the implementation of local patent rules in this district as well as in many other districts. These rules have been extremely valuable in standardizing how patent cases are handled and expediting the disposition of these cases.

This is particularly true for cases arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act, for which specific rules are provided. Through application of the local patent rules, parties are afforded more procedural predictability and consistency in the course of a patent litigation.

For example, in addition to the typical initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, our local patent rules, specifically Local Patent Rules 3.1 to 3.5, require a plaintiff asserting patent infringement to make detailed disclosures at the outset of the case with respect to the patent claims being asserted and the bases of the infringement contentions. Shortly after a plaintiff makes its disclosures, a defendant must make similar disclosures on its non-infringement and invalidity contentions. This procedure solidifies and clarifies the issues in the case early.

The order of these disclosures is reversed for Hatch-Waxman cases under Local Patent Rule 3.6, which recognizes that defendants in those cases are in a better position to make the disclosures at the outset of the case because they have already developed a generic drug with knowledge of the plaintiff's patent and filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the US Food and Drug Administration.

What advice would you give to counsel and expert witnesses on explaining the underlying technology in a patent infringement case to the court or a jury? My advice is to keep it simple and clear when addressing technology not only in oral presentations, but in written materials as well. For the most part, I have found that counsel and experts do an excellent job of verbally explaining complex technological concepts when they appear in person at a hearing or trial.

Achieving this clarity seems to be more of a challenge, however, when they try to do the same in writing. Perhaps because of a belief that writing must be more formal, or the challenge of explaining complex matters within the required page limits, briefs and other written materials discussing the underlying technology are sometimes unclear and unnecessarily dense.

What is your biggest courtroom pet peeve? I have two. First, when an attorney is unprepared, it shows a lack of respect for the court, his adversary and his client. And it does not sit well with me when an attorney is unable to answer a straightforward question about the case, using the excuse that it is not his case and he is just covering the proceeding for that day.

Second, counsel should assume that I have read all of the papers submitted. I typically spend a great deal of time thoroughly reviewing the parties' papers and preparing for the argument or hearing. It is therefore wasteful for attorneys to simply repeat what is already in the briefs.

What advice would you give to counsel appearing before you regarding when to seek summary judgment in a patent infringement case? If counsel thinks summary judgment is appropriate to dispose of any (or all) of the issues in a patent case, counsel should plan for and address these motions sooner rather than later. As a case advances, I find that it is usually more efficient for all involved to proceed directly to trial on all of the issues rather than to brief, argue and decide complex summary judgment motions. Advance notice of these dispositive motions makes for better case management.

What recent Federal Circuit or US Supreme Court patent decision do you anticipate will have the greatest impact on patent litigation, and why? This term, the Supreme Court will decide Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. to address the question of whether the Federal Circuit should afford any deference to a district court's claim construction rulings. How this case is resolved has significant implications for claim construction practice in the district courts.

Currently, district courts' claim construction rulings are considered legal issues and are reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit. This has resulted in the Federal Circuit having significant independent authority to essentially re-review the entire case and record concerning a patent's validity. If the Supreme Court determines that these rulings, including a district court's resolution of fact-based questions on claim construction, should instead be reviewed for clear error, claim construction strategies in the district courts and the nature of appeals to the Federal Circuit will both change. A more deferential standard will result in more claim construction rulings being upheld on appeal, which will influence not only how parties approach claim construction, but also their litigation strategy generally.