D.N.J. (reported variously as 3:15-cv-08132 and 2:15-cv-08132)

I'll verify the court's profile with web searches before writing.

Let me verify a few more specifics — venue/transfer practice, the Patent Pilot Program, and the tracked case.

D.N.J. patent litigation profile

Court overview. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey sits in the Third Circuit, with courthouses in three vicinages — Newark (case prefix 2:), Trenton (3:), and Camden (1:). It is one of the largest and busiest federal trial courts, and its patent docket is overwhelmingly pharmaceutical. Per Docket Navigator data reported by IAM (Feb. 2025), 232 patent cases were filed in D.N.J. in 2024, a 77% year-over-year increase and the district's highest count since 2015; that made it the fifth most popular patent venue nationally in 2024, its best ranking since 2018. The New Jersey Law Journal reported at least 29 patent suits filed in November 2024 alone, against a 12-month average of ~18/month (Dec. 2023–Nov. 2024) and ~4/month in the prior year. Note the gap between that volume and this site's tracking: only one D.N.J. case appears in the authoritative list below.

Docket reputation. D.N.J. is best understood as an ANDA/Hatch-Waxman venue rather than a "rocket docket" in the E.D. Tex. sense. IAM's 2025 analysis found that for the first time in a decade, New Jersey (51%) surpassed Delaware (42%) in ANDA filings involving Orange Book patents in 2024, after the two districts had jointly handled roughly 81% of U.S. ANDA litigation in 2015. Commentators quoted in that piece attribute the shift to judicial familiarity with ANDA cases and a fully staffed bench, and note that Delaware and New Jersey courts "have a proven record of promptly trying Hatch-Waxman cases within the stay period" (Cook & Yurkerwich, Managing ANDA Venue Issues, Dec. 2023). I could not verify a reliable D.N.J.-specific median time-to-trial figure or a published Lex Machina/Unified Patents characterization of the district as plaintiff-friendly; anyone needing that should pull current Lex Machina or AOUSC/FJC data directly. Because pre-launch ANDA cases seek prospective relief and no damages, they are resolved by bench trial rather than jury — a structural feature of the case type nationally, not a D.N.J. idiosyncrasy. On transfer practice, D.N.J. is both a magnet and a § 1400(b) battleground: it adopted Delaware's Bristol-Myers Squibb reasoning on Hatch-Waxman venue in Celgene Corp. v. Hetero Labs Ltd., No. 17-cv-3387 (Mar. 2, 2018), a position the Federal Circuit later rejected in Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020), which limited venue to districts where ANDA-submission-related acts occurred. Since then D.N.J. has taken transfers in (e.g., Judge Albright's September 2024 transfer of Intellectual Ventures I v. Volvo to D.N.J.) and has dismissed patent claims for improper venue in other cases.

Local rules and procedures. D.N.J. has its own Local Patent Rules, L. Civ. R. 9.3, effective January 1, 2009, cited as L. Pat. R. ___. They apply to any action alleging patent infringement or seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability, and they largely track the model rules used in E.D. Tex. and elsewhere: early infringement and invalidity contentions; a dedicated Part Four governing claim construction; a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (JCCS) filed 30 days after the preliminary construction exchange and 45 days before opening Markman briefs; and a claim construction hearing "to the extent such a hearing is necessary." Two features matter in practice. First, L. Pat. R. 4.3(f) (added 2011) states that evidence not disclosed under Rules 4.2(a)–(c) "shall not" be included in the JCCS, which generates frequent motions to strike — though D.N.J. judges have held the rule does not strip their discretion to order supplementation instead of exclusion (Intra-Cellular Therapies v. Aurobindo Pharma, 3:24-cv-04264, 2025). Second, L. Pat. R. 3.6 contains specific disclosure obligations for Hatch-Waxman/ANDA actions (including early production of the ANDA and FDA communications). Amendment of any L. Pat. R. disclosure requires leave under Rule 3.7 on a good-cause showing. The district also maintains a consent discovery confidentiality order form (Appendix S) and Patent Pilot Project assignment procedures in L. Civ. R. 40.1(f) and Appendix T.

Notable tracked case and rulings. The sole tracked D.N.J. matter, Helsinn Healthcare S.A. et al. v. Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. (filed Nov. 17, 2015; closed/dismissed), is a Hatch-Waxman action by the maker of Aloxi (palonosetron) against a generic filer. The site's data reports the docket inconsistently as 3:15-cv-08132 and 2:15-cv-08132; the two prefixes correspond to the Trenton and Newark vicinages, so the docket number should be confirmed against PACER before citing it. More significant is Helsinn's parallel D.N.J. litigation against Teva. The district court held that the AIA's on-sale bar required public availability of the invention, 2016 WL 832089 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2016); the Federal Circuit reversed, 855 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and the Supreme Court affirmed unanimously in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), holding that a sale to a party obligated to keep the invention confidential can trigger the § 102(a)(1) on-sale bar. That ruling emerged from a D.N.J. ANDA case and remains the district's most consequential patent-law contribution.

Judges. The tracked case list names no judge, so the following comes from Docket Navigator's ranking of New Jersey jurists by ANDA/Orange Book case volume since 2015, as reported by IAM: Magistrate Judges Cathy L. Waldor (163), Lois H. Goodman (163), Douglas E. Arpert (160, retired 2024), Tonianne J. Bongiovanni (132), and Leda D. Wettre (94), and District Judges Michael A. Shipp (142), Karen M. Williams (130), Stanley R. Chesler (119), Renee Marie Bumb (111), Freda L. Wolfson (99, retired 2023), Peter G. Sheridan (94), and Brian R. Martinotti (90). IAM separately flagged Martinotti as a top-five U.S. patent judge by case volume in Q3 2024. The heavy magistrate-judge share reflects the district's practice of assigning substantial ANDA discovery and claim construction work to magistrate judges. I did not find published Lex Machina, Unified Patents, or Reuters analysis assigning win-rate leanings to individual D.N.J. patent judges, so none is asserted here.