product as a treatment for depression; Unigen and Univera further point out that Univera is in fact prohibited from doing so by FDA regulation. The question is, then, does Univera infringe Claim 16 of the '308 patent by marketing and selling, products containing 6-MBOA as a treatment for stress? In other words, is treating “stress” the same as treating “depression” as used in Claim 16? The answer depends on how the court construes the term “depression” as used in Claim 16. Several considerations are important in addressing this question. First, on a motion for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement dispute, a court is not required to engage in a comprehensive and final claim construction See Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1221 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Further, when construing a claim term: ... a
holding that courts interpret indemnity provisions same as written contracts holding a state court has an inescapable obligation to interpret and apply the federal statute holding that trial courts have no obligation to conclusively and finally interpret claims when considering a preliminary injunction recognizing that the rules of statutory construction apply when we interpret constitutional provisions holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation