Filed: Mar. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 70). At its core, this case is a breach of contract matter, and Defendant requests the Court find that Defendant is not liable under the contract at issue. However, in order to do this, Defendant seeks a claim construction of a term in claim 1 of the patent: "a stock of recombinant adeno-associated virus." ( See ECF No. 69, at 12, 23.) It is
Summary: ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 70). At its core, this case is a breach of contract matter, and Defendant requests the Court find that Defendant is not liable under the contract at issue. However, in order to do this, Defendant seeks a claim construction of a term in claim 1 of the patent: "a stock of recombinant adeno-associated virus." ( See ECF No. 69, at 12, 23.) It is ..
More
ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 70). At its core, this case is a breach of contract matter, and Defendant requests the Court find that Defendant is not liable under the contract at issue. However, in order to do this, Defendant seeks a claim construction of a term in claim 1 of the patent: "a stock of recombinant adeno-associated virus." (See ECF No. 69, at 12, 23.) It is not clear exactly how Defendant would construe this phrase or if Defendant is requesting a construction of the entire phrase or only certain words within the phrase. Plaintiff believes a claim construction is improper and disagrees with Defendant's construction, but does not propose a construction.
While the Court understands that a claim construction may occur within a summary judgment, it is the Court's preference to construe the meaning of disputed terms before determining summary judgment. See Nesscap Co. v. Maxwell Tech., Inc., 07cv704 JLS (BLM), 2007 WL 4277548, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007) (finding summary judgment is premature until the Court has construed the meaning of the debated term). This is not an uncommon preference. See Anticancer, Inc. v. Perry Scientific, Inc., 07cv0778 JAH (BLM), 2008 WL 11337378 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008) (holding the Court would not entertain a summary judgment motion prior to a Markman hearing).
The Court understands the delay that a claim construction would impose on this case.1 Thus, the Court SETS a status conference for April 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the issue. Although Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is set for hearing on this day, the Court will not be issuing a tentative ruling on the pending Motion at this time but will be discussing the case in its entirety going forward.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
