United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Oxford Immunotec Ltd. (“plaintiff” or
“Oxford”) alleges defendants Qiagen, Inc., Quest
Diagnostics, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings (collectively, “defendants”) infringed
six of its patents relating to a method for diagnosing
before the Court is defendants' joint
“emergency” motion 1) to preclude Oxford from
offering constructions on 19 of its 61 claims and/or opposing
defendants' proposed constructions, or, alternatively, 2)
to modify the Scheduling Order (Docket No. 104) entered by
this Court on December, 8, 2016. For the reasons that follow,
defendants' motion will be denied.
is owner of six different patents describing a method for
diagnosing tuberculosis in vitro (outside of the
human body). The six patents-in-suit are: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,
632, 646, 7, 901, 898, 8, 216, 795, 8, 507, 211, 8, 617, 821
and 9, 005, 902. Oxford's amended complaint contains six
counts alleging that defendants infringed each of those
patents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c).
November, 2016, the Court held a scheduling conference,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and Local Rule 16.6, to
determine all pre-trial deadlines. Following that hearing, on
December 6, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to amend
the schedule in order to resolve deadlines that fell on
weekends. This Court allowed that motion and entered the
operative Scheduling Order on December 8, 2016.
Court entered, upon agreement by the parties, the following
deadlines relevant to the instant motion:
1) March 15, 2017: the parties will exchange a list of claim
terms to be construed and proposed constructions;
2) March 31, 2017: the parties will “meet and
confer” to narrow the claim construction issues;
3) April 14, 2017: the parties will file preliminary claim
construction briefs with replies due by May 1, 2017 and
4) May 25, 2017: the Court will conduct a Markman
to defendants, plaintiff's March 15 disclosure merely
asserted that the terms in its 61 asserted claims were
entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning. Then, on March
28, 2017, plaintiff provided defendants with proposed
constructions for many of the disputed terms but maintained
that 19 of them should be afforded their plain meaning.
subsequently filed this motion to sanction plaintiffs for
failing to comply with this Court's Scheduling Order, or,
in the alternative, to modify the Scheduling Order. The Court
allowed plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the motion, which
it did on April 4, 2017.
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions or to Amend ...