Medicinova, Inc. v. Genzyme Corporation

Filing 89

ORDER Setting Status Conference. The Court sets a status conference for 4/19/2018 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Janis L. Sammartino. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/29/2018.(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

MEDICINOVA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,

16

ORDER SETTING STATUS
CONFERENCE

Plaintiff,

14
15

Case No.: 14-CV-2513-JLS (KSC)

v.
GENZYME CORPORATION, a
Massachusetts Corporation,

17

Defendant.

18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.

20

70). At its core, this case is a breach of contract matter, and Defendant requests the Court

21

find that Defendant is not liable under the contract at issue. However, in order to do this,

22

Defendant seeks a claim construction of a term in claim 1 of the patent: “a stock of

23

recombinant adeno-associated virus.” (See ECF No. 69, at 12, 23.) It is not clear exactly

24

how Defendant would construe this phrase or if Defendant is requesting a construction of

25

the entire phrase or only certain words within the phrase. Plaintiff believes a claim

26

construction is improper and disagrees with Defendant’s construction, but does not propose

27

a construction.

28
1
14-CV-2513-JLS (KSC)

1

While the Court understands that a claim construction may occur within a summary

2

judgment, it is the Court’s preference to construe the meaning of disputed terms before

3

determining summary judgment. See Nesscap Co. v. Maxwell Tech., Inc., 07cv704 JLS

4

(BLM), 2007 WL 4277548, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2007) (finding summary judgment is

5

premature until the Court has construed the meaning of the debated term). This is not an

6

uncommon preference. See Anticancer, Inc. v. Perry Scientific, Inc., 07cv0778 JAH

7

(BLM), 2008 WL 11337378 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2008) (holding the Court would not

8

entertain a summary judgment motion prior to a Markman hearing).

9

The Court understands the delay that a claim construction would impose on this

10

case.1 Thus, the Court SETS a status conference for April 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss

11

the issue. Although Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is set for hearing on this

12

day, the Court will not be issuing a tentative ruling on the pending Motion at this time but

13

will be discussing the case in its entirety going forward.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs state “a claim construction ruling by the Court would require an additional period of
supplemental expert discovery, including supplemental reports and depositions, as well as a claim
construction hearing, in order to allow both sides’ experts to take the Court’s adjudicated meaning of the
relevant claim terms into effect.” (ECF No. 86, at 13.) The Parties are to confer on this issue and inform
the Court as to what will be needed if the Court determines a claim construction is necessary.
1

2
14-CV-2513-JLS (KSC)