By Memorandum Order entered in Neology, Inc. v. Federal Signal Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 11-672-LPS-MPT (D.Del., September 21, 2012), the Honorable Mary Pat Thynge denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an early motion for partial summary judgment after finding that there was no good cause to modify the scheduling order. Leave of Court was required because the scheduling order provides that “no case dispositive motion may be filed at a time before” November 4, 2013, “[u]nless the Court directs otherwise.” Id. at 2.

Plaintiff sought leave to file its early motion for partial summary judgment because the Court, in denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, adopted plaintiff’s proposed construction as to certain terms in two patents. Id. Defendants responded asserting, among other things, that plaintiff’s motion was based on a false premise that the case was done with respect to claim construction and infringement issues as to the claims at issue. Id. at 3.

In denying plaintiff’s motion for leave, the Court noted that, although it did adopt plaintiff’s proposed claim construction as to certain terms for the purpose of preliminary injunction, “a conclusion of law such as claim construction is subject to change upon the development of the record after a district court’s decision on a motion for preliminary injunction.” Id. at 4. Thus, the initial construction for purposes of the preliminary injunction was only tentative and subject to being revisited upon development of the full record. Id. 

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.