N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________
R ICHARD H. P ILDES , New York, NY, argued for plai ntiff

- appellant. Also represented by R ICHARD D E L UCIA , E LIZABETH G ARDNER , A LOYSIUS A NTONY P FEFFER , A NDREW D. S ILVERMAN , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY ; A LEC S CHIERENBECK , Washington, DC; R OBERT L. U RIARTE , Menlo Park, CA.

G REGORY D ISKANT , Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendants

- appellees.2 MEDINOL LTD

. v. CORDIS CORPORATION

Also represented by E UGENE M. G ELERNTER , L AURA K

AUFMAN

.

______________________
Before D YK , R EYNA , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

D YK , 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, relyi ng 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 infring ement 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. Metro

Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. ” J.A. 217. On April 4, 2014, the district court entered judgment tha t 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 defens e in copyright. 134 S. Ct. 1962, 197 8–79 (2014).

Three m onths 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 theMEDINOL LTD

. v. CORDIS CORPORATION 3

judgment was based. The district court denied the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, explaining that Aukerman remained controlling prec edent 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 petition ed for certiorari. T he Supreme Court

, having granted certiorari in SCA Hygiene , h eld 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 Med inol’s petition for certiorari, vacated the judgment, and “rem anded to the United States Cour t 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 Auker m an , which ha s 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 under4 MEDINOL LTD

. v. CORDIS CORPORATION

Rule 60(b)(6) has been established

. 1 As part of the e xtraordinary circumstances analysis, the district court should consider Medinol’s failure to appeal the original judgment under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonz alez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 , 536

– 38 (2005)

. VAC ATED 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 . . .

ca u tion[ed] that [Rule 60(b)(6)] should only be applied in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ ”).