NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MEDINOL LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORDIS CORPORATION, JOHNSON & JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1027

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:13-cv-01408-SAS, 

Judge Shira Ann Scheindlin.

______________________ 

Decided: April 19, 2018 

______________________ 

 RICHARD H. PILDES, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by RICHARD DELUCIA, 

ELIZABETH GARDNER, ALOYSIUS ANTONY PFEFFER, ANDREW 

D. SILVERMAN, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New 

York, NY; ALEC SCHIERENBECK, Washington, DC; ROBERT 

L. URIARTE, Menlo Park, CA.

 GREGORY DISKANT, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 

LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. 
2 MEDINOL LTD. v. CORDIS CORPORATION

Also represented by EUGENE M. GELERNTER, LAURA 

KAUFMAN. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

I 

In 2013, Medinol brought a patent-infringement suit 

against Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson

(“Cordis”). The defendants asserted a defense of laches,

relying on this court’s decision in A.C. Aukerman Co. v. 

R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 

1992) (en banc). The parties agreed that the district court 

would hold a bench trial on the laches defense. Before 

trial, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide 

whether the defense of laches was a defense to infringement in copyright. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Inc., 

570 U.S. 948 (2013). In its pretrial memorandum of law, 

Medinol “reserve[d] the right to argue that the equitable 

defense of laches should not be applied to bar a patentee’s 

legal claim for damages . . . based on the outcome of the 

pending appeal to the Supreme Court in Petrella v. MetroGoldwyn Mayer, Inc.” J.A. 217. 

On April 4, 2014, the district court entered judgment

that the defense of laches barred damages for Medinol’s 

claims of patent infringement. J.A. 1185. Medinol did not 

appeal, and the judgment became final on May 4, 2014. 

On May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Petrella, 

which held that laches is not a defense in copyright. 134 

S. Ct. 1962, 1978–79 (2014). 

Three months later, on August 5, 2014, Medinol 

brought a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b)(6) seeking relief from the final judgment, arguing 

that the Petrella decision was an intervening change in 

law that upended the laches framework upon which the
MEDINOL LTD. v. CORDIS CORPORATION 3

judgment was based. The district court denied the Rule 

60(b)(6) motion, explaining that Aukerman remained 

controlling precedent despite Petrella. 

Medinol appealed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion 

to our court, and we held the appeal in abeyance while we 

considered SCA Hygiene en banc. In the en banc decision, 

our court held that laches remained a viable defense in 

the patent infringement context. See SCA Hygiene Prods. 

Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods. LLC, 807 F.3d 

1311, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), vacated in part by 

137 S. Ct. 954 (2017). Medinol and Cordis then moved for 

summary affirmance in light of the SCA Hygiene en banc

decision, which we granted, affirming the district court. 

Medinol petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court, 

having granted certiorari in SCA Hygiene, held Medinol’s 

petition. 

The Supreme Court then reversed SCA Hygiene and 

held that laches is no longer a defense to bar damages for 

patent infringement. 137 S. Ct. at 967. The Supreme 

Court then granted Medinol’s petition for certiorari, 

vacated the judgment, and “remanded to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further 

consideration in light of SCA Hygiene.” Medinol Ltd. v. 

Cordis Corp., 137 S. Ct. 1372 (2017). We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). A district court’s Rule 

60(b)(6) ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

II

The district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief was 

based on Aukerman, which has since been overruled by 

the Supreme Court. See SCA Hygiene, 137 S. Ct. at 967. 

That judgment is accordingly vacated, and this case is 

remanded to the district court to determine whether the 

“extraordinary circumstances” showing required under 
4 MEDINOL LTD. v. CORDIS CORPORATION

Rule 60(b)(6) has been established.1 As part of the extraordinary circumstances analysis, the district court 

should consider Medinol’s failure to appeal the original 

judgment under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536–38 (2005). 

VACATED AND REMANDED 

COSTS

No costs. 

1 See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 

486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988) (quoting Ackermann v. United 

States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)) (“We have previously . . . 

caution[ed] that [Rule 60(b)(6)] should only be applied in 

‘extraordinary circumstances.’”).