Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts; April 11, 2017; Federal District Court
Plaintiff Oxford Immunotec Ltd. accuses defendants Qia-gen, Inc., Quest Diagnostics, Inc., and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings of infringing six patents related to tuberculosis diagnosis. The defendants filed an emergency motion seeking to preclude Oxford from offering claim constructions on 19 of its 61 claims or, alternatively, to modify the existing Scheduling Order from December 8, 2016. The Court denied the defendants’ motion.
Oxford holds six patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,632,646, 7,901,898, 8,216,795, 8,507,211, 8,617,821, and 9,005,902) and alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a, c). A scheduling conference in November 2016 established deadlines for exchanging claim terms, narrowing issues, and filing claim construction briefs, culminating in a Markman hearing on May 25, 2017.
Defendants argue that Oxford did not comply with the Scheduling Order by asserting that 19 claim terms should be construed by their plain meaning. Oxford contends it was not required to provide definitions for these terms, thus claiming compliance. The Court noted that while it must resolve claim construction disputes, it can adopt the plain meaning of terms without specific definitions, referencing relevant case law.
Defendants reference cases where district courts requested alternative constructions to clarify terms, typically seeking additional information during or after Markman hearings. However, in this instance, the parties have yet to submit opening claim construction briefs, and the Markman hearing is scheduled for May 25, 2017. Additionally, no "meet and confer" has occurred to address claim construction issues prior to the defendants' filing of the motion. Defendants will not be prejudiced by plaintiffs' initial assertion that certain terms should retain their plain meaning, as they will have multiple opportunities to respond in their pleadings and during the Markman hearing. Consequently, plaintiffs' stance on plain meaning does not constitute a breach of the Court's December 8, 2016 Scheduling Order, and therefore, sanctions are deemed unnecessary. The motion by defendants to expedite and to prevent plaintiffs from offering constructions or opposing defendants' proposals is denied.
