Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-circuit-holds-that-laches-is-68160/
Timestamp: 2019-05-23 10:14:09
Document Index: 174476555

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 282', '§ 286', '§ 286', '§ 282', '§ 282']

Federal Circuit Holds That Laches is Defense To Equitable Relief and Pre-Filing Damages In Patent Infringement Actions | Brooks Kushman P.C. - JDSupra
In a recent en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that laches resulting from a delay in filing suit for patent infringement is a statutory defense, and may bar a patentee from obtaining injunctive relief or an award of pre-suit damages. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, Case No. 2013-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015). The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s 2014 Petrella decision, which held that laches is not available as a defense under the Copyright Act. See Petrella v. MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014). In addition, the Federal Circuit ruled that although a laches defense may preclude injunctive relief or an award for pre-suit damages, it only will bar a patentee’s right to continuing royalties for post-trial infringement in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote the majority opinion, which the entire court joined on the question whether laches is a defense to patent infringement. The court noted that, unlike the Copyright Act, the current Patent Act incorporates laches as a statutory defense. Although 35 USC § 282 does not explicitly refer to laches, it states that defenses to patent infringement claims “include noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability.” 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(1) The court observed that it long had recognized that laches was codified in this provision. Moreover, the court relied on a detailed commentary on the Patent Act written by Pasquale J. Federico, the USPTO’s unofficial “historian” and principal author of the legislation that became the 1952 Patent Act. P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, reprinted in 75 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 161 (1993). The court noted that it and other courts have cited Federico’s commentary as “an invaluable insight into the intentions of the drafters of the Act.” Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., 277 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002). According to Federico’s commentary, Congress intended § 282(b)(1) to “include the defenses such as that the patented invention has not been made, used or sold by the defendant; license; and equitable defenses such as laches, estoppel and unclean hands.”
Pre-Filing Damages
§ 286. Time limitation on damages , 35 U.S.C. § 286
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med , 277 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
§ 282. Presumption of validity; defenses , 35 U.S.C. § 282
Menendez v. Holt , 128 U.S. 514 (1888)
Banker v. Ford Motor Co. , 69 F.2d 665 (3d Cir. 1934)