Supreme Court’s Footnote About Auckerman in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. Does Not Create New Law: Cordis’s Laches Defense Stands

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact

Medinol Ltd., v. Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson

September 26, 2014

Case Number: 1:13-cv-0148-SAS

In March, Judge Scheindlin found that laches formed a complete defense for Cordis in this matter. Medinol did not appeal that decision, but after the Supreme Court issued Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., holding that that laches cannot be used to defeat a claim filed within the Copyright Act’s three year statute of limitations, Medinol asked the court for relief under FRCP rule 60(b). Medinol argued that Petrella’s footnote about Aukerman, “the Federal Circuit has held that laches can bar damages incurred prior to the commencement of suit, but not injunctive relief. . . . We have not had occasion to review the Federal Circuit’s position.”, reflected “an intervening change in law.”

Judge Scheindlin disagreed. She said that she was bound by Federal Circuit precedent, and that the Federal Circuit had reaffirmed that Aukerman applies in a patent context.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Robins Kaplan LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Robins Kaplan LLP
Contact
more
less

Robins Kaplan LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide