Supreme Court to Determine Viability of Laches Defense in Patent Suits
On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products. The closely watched intellectual property case will determine whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period.
Doctrine of Laches
Laches is an equitable defense under which a legal right or claim will not be enforced if a significant delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the opposing party. The reasoning is that waiting an unreasonable amount of time to bring a claim functions as a sort of “legal ambush” and is unfair to the defendant. Laches is a very powerful affirmative defense and is frequently asserted. However, courts are often reluctant to apply it, particularly within the term of the applicable statute of limitations.
Impact of Patrella Decision
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), the Supreme Court held that the defense of laches cannot be used to shorten the three-year copyright limitations period set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleged that the film Raging Bull infringed a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella. Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. To satisfy the three-year statute of limitations, Patrella cited the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
The Supreme Court rejected lower court rulings that laches barred Petrella’s suit in its entirety. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that “we have never applied laches to bar in their entirety claims for discrete wrongs occurring within a federally prescribed limitations period.” She added “inviting individual judges to set a time limit other than the one Congress prescribed, we note, would tug against the uniformity Congress sought to achieve when it enacted § 507(b).”
Applying Laches to Patent Suits
The justices will now decide if the same principle applies in patent infringement cases. Notably, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has not followed in the patent setting, applying laches to bar infringement claims accruing within the six-year limitations period prescribed in 35 U.S.C. § 286.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared to see few distinctions between applying the doctrine to copyrights or patents. Several justices also did not seem particularly bothered by the risk that patent plaintiffs might “lie in wait” to entrap defendants.
“Petrella explained, in the context of that case, that it wasn’t unscrupulous for this woman to wait to see whether there was anything in it for her. Why should she spend her money on a lawsuit when there wasn’t anything in the bank?” Ginsburg added “frankly, I don’t see a big difference between the way the patent statute of limitations works and the way the copyright statute did in Petrella.”
If the Supreme Court’s ruling is in line with their positions taken at oral argument, it will likely impact patent litigation by leading to a reduction in the assertion of the laches defense by defendants, although many defendants take a “spaghetti approach” when asserting defenses, in that they throw everything against the wall and hope somethings sticks. On the other hand, plaintiffs would be smart to take advantage Court’s ruling and “lie in wait” to determine if potential defendants have, as Justice Ginsburg put it, “anything in the bank.” Of course, we must await the Court’s final decision.
I encourage readers to stay tuned for further legal updates, however, should any questions arise regarding how the ruling in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products may impact your business or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
What is the Viability of the Laches Defense in Patent Suits?
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Supreme Court to Determine Viability of Laches Defense in Patent Suits
On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products. The closely watched intellectual property case will determine whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period.
Doctrine of Laches
Laches is an equitable defense under which a legal right or claim will not be enforced if a significant delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the opposing party. The reasoning is that waiting an unreasonable amount of time to bring a claim functions as a sort of “legal ambush” and is unfair to the defendant. Laches is a very powerful affirmative defense and is frequently asserted. However, courts are often reluctant to apply it, particularly within the term of the applicable statute of limitations.
Impact of Patrella Decision
In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), the Supreme Court held that the defense of laches cannot be used to shorten the three-year copyright limitations period set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The plaintiff, Paula Petrella, alleged that the film Raging Bull infringed a 1963 screenplay written by her late father, Frank Petrella. Patrella did not file suit until 1999, nearly 20 years after the film was first released. To satisfy the three-year statute of limitations, Patrella cited the DVD release of Raging Bull by MGM Holdings Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment as the basis for her claim.
The Supreme Court rejected lower court rulings that laches barred Petrella’s suit in its entirety. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that “we have never applied laches to bar in their entirety claims for discrete wrongs occurring within a federally prescribed limitations period.” She added “inviting individual judges to set a time limit other than the one Congress prescribed, we note, would tug against the uniformity Congress sought to achieve when it enacted § 507(b).”
Applying Laches to Patent Suits
The justices will now decide if the same principle applies in patent infringement cases. Notably, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has not followed in the patent setting, applying laches to bar infringement claims accruing within the six-year limitations period prescribed in 35 U.S.C. § 286.
During oral arguments, the justices appeared to see few distinctions between applying the doctrine to copyrights or patents. Several justices also did not seem particularly bothered by the risk that patent plaintiffs might “lie in wait” to entrap defendants.
“Petrella explained, in the context of that case, that it wasn’t unscrupulous for this woman to wait to see whether there was anything in it for her. Why should she spend her money on a lawsuit when there wasn’t anything in the bank?” Ginsburg added “frankly, I don’t see a big difference between the way the patent statute of limitations works and the way the copyright statute did in Petrella.”
If the Supreme Court’s ruling is in line with their positions taken at oral argument, it will likely impact patent litigation by leading to a reduction in the assertion of the laches defense by defendants, although many defendants take a “spaghetti approach” when asserting defenses, in that they throw everything against the wall and hope somethings sticks. On the other hand, plaintiffs would be smart to take advantage Court’s ruling and “lie in wait” to determine if potential defendants have, as Justice Ginsburg put it, “anything in the bank.” Of course, we must await the Court’s final decision.
I encourage readers to stay tuned for further legal updates, however, should any questions arise regarding how the ruling in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products may impact your business or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Shane Birnbaum, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
