Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.

Patent Act—Laches Defense

SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927

The equitable defense of laches bars a plaintiff's claim if the plaintiff has unreasonably delayed filing suit to the prejudice of the defendant.  In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that no such defense was available in a copyright action.  Yesterday, the Supreme Court extended Petrella to patent cases seeking damages for infringement, overturning 25 years of contrary Federal Circuit precedent.

In the majority opinion, which was authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that the Patent Act's six-year limitations period reflects Congress's judgment as to the appropriate timeframe for patent infringement damages actions.  Laches, the Court held, is a gap filling equitable defense, so it serves no function when Congress has specified the applicable limitations period.

Justice Breyer dissented.  In his view, despite the statute of limitations, there remains a gap to be filled by laches because, unlike other limitations periods, the Patent Act's six-year bar merely prohibits a plaintiff from collecting damages from wrongful acts that are more than six years old—as opposed to foreclosing claims entirely if they could have been brought more than six years earlier.  Justice Breyer would have recognized a laches defense, to prevent a plaintiff from intentionally delaying the filing of an action until a time when the six-year lookback period would contain greater damages.

The Court's decision does not preclude an accused patent infringer from interposing a defense of equitable estoppel, if the alleged infringer relied on indications from the patent holder that claims of infringement would not be pursued.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.