`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLAG
`AND SCA PERSONAL CARE, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC, FIRST QUALITY
`HYGIENIC, INC., FIRST QUALITY PRODUCTS, INC.,
`AND FIRST QUALITY RETAIL SERVICES, LLC,
`Respondents.
`
`
`ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS
`
`
`MARK C. FLEMING
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`KENNETH P. GEORGE
`CHARLES R. MACEDO
`MARK BERKOWITZ
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN
` & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`SETH P. WAXMAN
` Counsel of Record
`THOMAS G. SAUNDERS
`MATTHEW GUARNIERI
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com
`JASON D. HIRSCH
`HANNA A. BAEK
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`Whether laches is available as a defense under the
`Patent Act to bar claims for damages.
`
`(i)
`
`
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`First Quality Baby Products, LLC; First Quality
`Hygienic, Inc.; First Quality Products, Inc.; and First
`Quality Retail Services, LLC are privately held com-
`panies, and no publicly held company owns 10% or more
`of the stock of any of them.
`
`
`(ii)
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................... i
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............. ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... vi
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1
`STATEMENT ..................................................................... 2
`A. Statutory Background .......................................... 2
`B. Factual Background ............................................. 7
`C. Prior Proceedings ................................................. 9
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................... 13
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 16
`I. CONGRESS CODIFIED LACHES AS A DE-
`FENSE TO DAMAGES CLAIMS IN § 282 OF
`THE PATENT ACT ....................................................... 16
`A. Before 1952, The Federal Courts Uni-
`formly Recognized Laches As A Bar
`To Recovering Damages For Patent
`Infringement ........................................................ 17
`1. Laches barred recovery of patent
`damages before the merger of law
`and equity ...................................................... 17
`2. Laches was also available as a de-
`fense in the rare patent actions
`brought at law .............................................. 21
`3. The consensus view of laches as a
`bar to damages persisted after the
`1938 merger of law and equity ................... 23
`
`(iii)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`4. SCA’s attempt to rebut this judi-
`cial consensus fails ....................................... 24
`B. The Text, Purpose, And History Of
`The 1952 Act Demonstrate That Con-
`gress Intended To Preserve Laches As
`A Defense To Damages ...................................... 28
`C. Since 1952, Congress Has Altered The
`Patent Act Repeatedly Without Dis-
`turbing Laches ..................................................... 33
`II. SCA MISREADS PETRELLA AND MISCON-
`STRUES § 286 OF THE PATENT ACT ......................... 36
`A. Petrella’s Concern For Respecting
`Legislative Intent Supports Retaining
`Laches Here ......................................................... 37
`B. Congress Had Good Reason For A Dif-
`ferent Approach To Laches In Patent
`Law ........................................................................ 40
`1. Section 286 is not a statute of limi-
`tations and does not measure a pa-
`tentee’s delay ................................................ 40
`2. SCA’s other textual arguments
`premised on § 286 are unfounded .............. 42
`3. SCA ignores numerous other dis-
`tinctions between patent and copy-
`right law ........................................................ 44
`C. SCA’s Policy Arguments Are Un-
`founded ................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`Page
`
`III. THE PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE AFTER
`SIX YEARS OF DELAY SHOULD BE RE-
`TAINED ......................................................................... 51
`CONCLUSION ................................................................. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`A.C. Aukerman Co. v. Miller Formless
`Co., 693 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1982) ............................... 50
`A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides
`Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed.
`Cir. 1992) ............................................................. passim
`A.R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie, 209 F. 364 (2d
`Cir. 1913) ................................................................ 18, 20
`A. Stucki Co. v. Buckeye Steel Castings
`Co., 963 F.2d 360 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................ 41
`Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S.
`214 (2008) ..................................................................... 30
`American Home Products Corp. v.
`Lockwood Manufacturing Co., 483
`F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1973) ........................................... 34
`Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top
`Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961) ..................... 33
`Arrowood v. Symington-Gould Corp., 71 F.
`Supp. 693 (S.D.N.Y. 1946) ......................................... 23
`Baker Manufacturing Co. v. Whitewater
`Manufacturing Co., 430 F.2d 1008 (7th
`Cir. 1970) ................................................................ 34, 52
`Ball v. Gibbs, 118 F.2d 958 (8th Cir. 1941) ..................... 28
`Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., 704 F.2d
`1578 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................. 46
`Banker v. Ford Motor Co., 3 F. Supp. 737
`(W.D. Pa. 1933) ........................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Banker v. Ford Motor Co., 69 F.2d 665 (3d
`Cir. 1934) ................................................................ 22, 24
`Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning
`Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of
`California, Inc., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) ....................... 40
`Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S.
`410 (1998) ..................................................................... 41
`Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 (1876) ............................. 2
`Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) .......................... 29
`Brennan v. Hawley Products Co., 182 F.2d
`945 (7th Cir. 1950) ................................................. 23, 28
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501
`F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007) ............................................... 47
`Campbell v. City of Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610
`(1895) .............................................................................. 5
`Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S.
`677 (1979) ..................................................................... 29
`Carpet Seaming Tape Licensing Corp. v.
`Best Seam Inc., 694 F.2d 570 (9th Cir.
`1982) ............................................................................. 34
`Celastic Corp. v. McClellan Shoe Specialty
`Co., 15 F. Supp. 1048 (D. Del. 1936) ......................... 19
`Cheney v. United States District Court for
`District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367
`(2004) ............................................................................ 40
`Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes
`Tool Co., 192 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. 1951) .................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`City of Concord v. Norton, 16 F. 477
`(C.C.D. Mass. 1883) .................................................... 27
`Continental Coatings Corp. v. Metco, Inc.,
`464 F.2d 1375 (7th Cir. 1972) .................................... 34
`CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175
`(2014) ...................................................................... 41, 42
`v. Wilson & Willard
`Cummings
`Manufacturing Co., 4 F.2d 453 (9th
`Cir. 1925) ...................................................................... 18
`Dallas Machinery & Locomotive Works,
`Inc. v. Willamette-Hyster Co., 28 F.
`Supp. 207 (D. Or. 1939) .............................................. 19
`Delaney Patents Corp. v. Johns-Manville,
`29 F. Supp. 431 (S.D. Cal. 1939) ................................ 23
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303
`(1980) ...................................................................... 32, 33
`Dock & Terminal Engineering Co. v.
`Pennsylvania Railroad, 82 F.2d 19 (3d
`Cir. 1936) ...................................................................... 18
`Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v.
`Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1928) ....... 18, 19, 21
`Enelow v. New York Life Insurance Co.,
`293 U.S. 379 (1935) ..................................................... 24
`Federal Housing Financial Agency v.
`UBS Americas Inc., 712 F.3d 136 (2d
`Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 41
`Feinstein v. I.T.S. Co., 68 F. Supp. 15 (N.D.
`Ohio 1946) .................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`v. Rural
`Inc.
`Feist Publications,
`Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340
`(1991) ............................................................................ 45
`Ford v. Huff, 296 F. 652 (5th Cir. 1924) ............. 21, 22, 24
`France Manufacturing Co. v. Jefferson
`Electric Co., 106 F.2d 605 (6th Cir. 1939) ................. 21
`Frank F. Smith Hardware Co. v. S.H.
`Pomeroy Co., 299 F. 544 (2d Cir. 1924) ................... 19
`Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368 (1892) ........................ 28
`George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co. v.
`Miller Manufacturing Co., 24 F.2d 505
`(7th Cir. 1928) .............................................................. 19
`Gillons v. Shell Co. of California, 86 F.2d
`600 (9th Cir. 1936) ............................... 18, 19, 21, 28, 52
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`536 U.S. 754 (2011) ..................................................... 45
`Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics,
`Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ........................................ 17
`Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros., 96
`F.2d 227 (4th Cir. 1938) ............................................. 19
`Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident
`Insurance Co., 134 S. Ct. 604 (2013) ........................ 41
`Holman v. Oil Well Supply Co., 83 F.2d
`538 (3d Cir. 1936) ........................................................ 18
`Huff v. Ford, 289 F. 858 (S.D. Fla. 1923) ....................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Jensen v. Western Irrigation & Manu-
`facturing, Inc., 650 F.2d 165 (9th Cir.
`1980) ............................................................................. 34
`Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC,
`135 S. Ct. 2401 (2015) ................................................. 36
`Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68 (1880) ............................. 25
`Lane & Bodley Co. v. Locke, 150 U.S. 193
`(1893) ........................................................................ 5, 44
`Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`550 U.S. 618 (2007) ..................................................... 40
`Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank,
`260 U.S. 235 (1922) ..................................................... 22
`Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768 (1985) ............................. 36
`Lukens Steel Co. v. American Locomotive
`Co., 197 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1952) ................................ 23
`Marlatt v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 70
`F. Supp. 426 (S.D. Cal. 1947) ............................... 23, 28
`Mather v. Ford Motor Co., 40 F. Supp. 589
`(E.D. Mich. 1941) ........................................................ 22
`McLaughlin v. People’s Railway Co., 21 F.
`574 (C.C.E.D. Mo. 1884) ............................................. 19
`Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514 (1888) ........................... 44
`Meyrowitz Manufacturing Co. v. Eccleston,
`98 F. 437 (C.C.D. Mass. 1899) .................................... 19
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564
`U.S. 91 (2011) ..................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Middleton v. Wiley, 195 F.2d 844 (8th Cir.
`1952) ............................................................................. 27
`Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v.
`Berwick Industries, Inc., 532 F.2d 330
`(3d Cir. 1976) ............................................................... 34
`Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Clair, 123 F.2d
`878 (8th Cir. 1941) ....................................................... 19
`National Railroad Passenger Corp. v.
`Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) ..................................... 39
`Naxon Telesign Corp. v. Bunker Ramo
`Corp., 686 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1982) ......................... 34
`Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) ...................... 29
`North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S.
`29 (1995) ....................................................................... 36
`Oroz v. American President Lines, Ltd.,
`259 F.2d 636 (2d Cir. 1958) ........................................ 52
`Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270 (Fed.
`Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 33
`Peerless Weighing & Vending Machine
`Corp. v. International Ticket Scale
`Corp., 37 F. Supp. 582 (D. Del. 1941) ....................... 23
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014) ........................................ passim
`POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014) ................................................. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Potash Co. of America v. International
`Minerals & Chemical Corp., 213 F.2d
`153 (10th Cir. 1954) ..................................................... 35
`Instrument Co.
`v. Storage
`Potter
`Technology Corp., 641 F.2d 190 (4th
`Cir. 1981) ...................................................................... 34
`Reisz v. Harvey, 33 F. Supp. 192 (N.D.
`Ohio 1940) .................................................................... 23
`Remington Rand, Inc. v. Acme Card
`System Co., 29 F. Supp. 192 (S.D. Ohio
`1937) ............................................................................. 19
`Richardson v. D.M. Osborne & Co., 93 F.
`828 (2d Cir. 1899) .................................................. 19, 28
`Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufactur-
`ing Corp., 719 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir.
`2013) ............................................................................. 20
`Rome Grader & Machinery Corp. v. J.D.
`Adams Manufacturing Co., 135 F.2d
`617 (7th Cir. 1943) ....................................................... 23
`Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. v.
`Consolidated Car Heating Co., 174 F.
`658 (2d Cir. 1909) .................................................. 19, 20
`Seghers v. Gardella, 55 F. Supp. 914 (N.D.
`Ohio 1944) .................................................................... 23
`Serdarevic v. Advanced Medical Optics,
`Inc., 532 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................... 51
`Shaffer v. Rector Well Equipment Co., 155
`F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1946) ............................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Skinner v. Aluminum Co. of America, 105
`F. Supp. 635 (W.D. Pa. 1952) .................................... 23
`Smith v. Sinclair Refining Co., 257 F.2d
`328 (2d Cir. 1958) ........................................................ 35
`Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
`Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) ............................. 49
`Standard Oil Co. v. Nippon Shokubai
`Kagaku Kogyo Co., 754 F.2d 345 (Fed.
`Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 41
`Starrett v. J. Stevens Arms & Tool Co., 96
`F. 244 (C.C.D. Mass. 1899) ........................................ 19
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. East-
`man Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.
`1980) ....................................................................... 34, 51
`Temco Manufacturing Co. v. National
`Electric Ticket Register Co., 33 F.2d
`777 (E.D. Mo. 1928) .............................................. 19, 20
`Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix,
`Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................... 46
`Thorpe v. Wm. Filene’s Sons Co., 40 F.2d
`269 (D. Mass. 1930) ..................................................... 27
`Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (1888) ........................ 2
`Todd v. Russell, 104 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1939) ................. 28
`Triplex Safety Glass Co. of North America
`v. Kolb, 53 F.2d 1062 (E.D. Pa. 1931) ...................... 28
`TWM Manufacturing Co. v. Dura Corp.,
`592 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1979) ................................ 35, 52
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corp. v.
`CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp.,
`587 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................. 29
`Union Shipbuilding Co. v. Boston Iron &
`Metal Co., 93 F.2d 781 (4th Cir. 1938) ............... 18, 28
`United Drug Co. v. Ireland Candy Co., 51
`F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1931) ............................................. 19
`United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 249
`U.S. 367 (1919) ............................................................ 40
`United States v. Gonzalez, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) ................. 29
`United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009) .................. 29
`United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480 (1935) ................... 27
`United States v. New Orleans Pacific Rail-
`way Co., 248 U.S. 507 (1919) ..................................... 28
`Universal Coin Lock Co. v. American
`Sanitary Lock Co., 104 F.2d 781 (7th
`Cir. 1939) ...................................................................... 22
`Van Alen v. Aluminum Co. of America, 43
`F. Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1942) .................................... 23
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis
`Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) ................. 32, 33, 34
`Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor
`Pullers Ass’n, 630 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir.
`1980) ............................................................................. 34
`Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314 (1894) ..................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`xv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Westco-Chippewa Pump Co. v. Delaware
`Electric & Supply Co., 64 F.2d 185 (3d
`Cir. 1933) ...................................................................... 18
`Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. New York
`Air Brake Co., 111 F. 741 (N.D.N.Y.
`1901) ....................................................................... 19, 20
`Wheatley v. Rex-Hide, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 543
`(N.D. Ill. 1938) ....................................................... 19, 20
`Whitman v. Walt Disney Productions,
`Inc., 263 F.2d 229 (9th Cir. 1958) ............................. 35
`Wilkie v. Manhattan Rubber Manufactur-
`ing Co., 8 F.2d 785 (D.N.J. 1925) .............................. 19
`Window Glass Machine Co. v. Pittsburgh
`Plate Glass Co., 46 F.2d 484 (W.D. Pa.
`1921) ............................................................................. 21
`Window Glass Machine Co. v. Pittsburgh
`Plate Glass Co., 284 F. 645 (3d Cir.
`1922) ............................................................................. 19
`Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals
`Separation North American Corp., 18
`F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1927) ............................................. 18
`Wolf, Sayer & Heller, Inc. v. United States
`Slicing Machine Co., 261 F. 195 (7th
`Cir. 1919) ...................................................................... 18
`Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U.S. 96 (1885) ........................ 28
`Woodmanse & Hewitt Manufacturing Co.
`v. Williams, 68 F. 489 (6th Cir. 1895) ................ 19, 20
`Yates v. Smith, 271 F. 27 (D.N.J. 1920) .................... 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Young v. General Electric Co., 96 F. Supp.
`109 (N.D. Ill. 1951) ...................................................... 23
`
`DOCKETED CASES
`Dock & Terminal Engineering Co. v.
`Pennsylvania Railroad, No. 5,757 (3d
`Cir.) ............................................................................... 20
`Union Shipbuilding Co. v. Boston Iron &
`Metal Co., No. 4,203 (4th Cir.) .................................. 20
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`No. 12-1315 (U.S.) ....................................................... 39
`
`STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`17 U.S.C.
`§ 106(2) ......................................................................... 48
`§ 106(4)-(6) ................................................................... 49
`§ 504(b) ......................................................................... 38
`§ 507(b) ................................................................... 37, 40
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 67 (1946) ...................................................................... 4
`§ 102(a) ......................................................................... 48
`§ 154(a)(2) .................................................................... 45
`§ 271(a) ......................................................................... 49
`§ 282 ..................................................................... passim
`§ 283 .............................................................................. 44
`§ 284 ................................................................ 5, 6, 31, 43
`§ 286 ..................................................................... passim
`§ 287 ........................................................................ 43, 46
`Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198 ................. 3, 6, 17
`Act of Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 391, 29 Stat. 692 .......................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`xvii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Pub. L. No. 60-349, 35 Stat. 1075 (1909) ......................... 39
`Pub. L. No. 63-278, 38 Stat. 956 (1915) ........................... 21
`Pub. L. No. 67-147, 42 Stat. 389 (1922) ............................. 5
`Pub. L. No. 79-587, 60 Stat. 778 (1946) ............................. 5
`Patent Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-593, 66
`Stat. 792 ............................................................. 6, 28, 29
`Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
`Restoration Act of 1984, Pub. L. No.
`98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 ................................................... 35
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ................................ 35
`Rev. Stat. (1874)
`§ 4919 ...................................................................... 3, 4, 6
`§ 4920 .............................................................................. 6
`§ 4921 .................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 6
`H.R. 7794, 82d Cong. § 282 (as passed by
`House, May 12, 1952) ................................................. 31
`H.R. 7794, 82d Cong. § 282 (as passed by S.
`Comm. on the Judiciary, June 27, 1952) .................. 31
`H.R. Rep. No. 82-1923 (1952) ........................... 6, 30, 31, 32
`S. Rep. No. 82-1979 (1952) ................................................ 31
`98 Cong. Rec. 9323 (1952) ........................................... 31, 32
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Beauchamp, Christopher, The First Patent
`Litigation Explosion, 125 Yale L.J. 848
`(2016) .................................................................. 4, 17, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`xviii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Chisum on Patents (2016) ................................................ 50
`Federico, P.J., Commentary on the New
`Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. 1 (West 1954),
`reprinted in 75 J. Pat. & Trademark
`Off. Soc’y 161 (1993) ................................................... 32
`Heard, Nathan, The New Rules of Civil
`Procedure
`as Affecting Patent
`Litigation, 20 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 895
`(1938) .............................................................................. 3
`Hoar, Roger Sherman, Patent Tactics and
`Law (3d ed. 1950) ........................................................ 30
`Judicial Conference of the United States,
`Report of the Division of Procedural
`Studies and Statistics, in Annual Re-
`port 67 (1952) ................................................................. 3
`Laycock, Douglas, The Triumph of Equity,
`56 L. & Contemp. Probs. 53 (Summer
`1993) ............................................................................. 25
`Lee, William F., & Douglas Melamed,
`Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Patent
`Damages, 101 Cornell L. Rev. 385
`(2016) ............................................................................ 47
`Lemley, Mark A., Why Do Juries Decide If
`Patents Are Valid?, 99 Va. L. Rev.
`1673 (2013) ..................................................................... 3
`Lutz, Karl B., Evolution of the Claims of
`U.S. Patents, 20 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 457
`(1938) .............................................................................. 3
`Nimmer on Copyright (2015)........................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`
`xix
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`Page(s)
`
`Robinson, William C., The Law of Patents
`for Useful Inventions (1890) ..................................... 17
`Selinger, Jerry R., A Survey of Article III
`Procedural Issues Considered at The
`Federal Circuit During Its First
`Decade, 27 J. Marshall L. Rev. 25
`(1993) ............................................................................ 51
`Walker on Patents (Deller’s ed., Supp.
`1951) ............................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`By the time Congress enacted the Patent Act of
`1952, courts had been applying laches to bar damages in
`patent infringement cases for over fifty years, along-
`side the separate six-year limit on damages now found
`in 35 U.S.C. § 286. Congress codified that longstanding
`judicial consensus—that a patent is rendered unen-
`forceable when a patentee’s unreasonable delay in filing
`suit prejudices the defendant—in § 282 of the Patent
`Act, which provides that existing “unenforceability”
`defenses, such as laches, are available “in any action.”
`Every court of appeals to consider the question since
`1952 has agreed that laches is a defense to damages in
`patent infringement cases. During that same period,
`Congress has repeatedly modified § 282 and other rele-
`vant provisions of the patent laws without ever ex-
`pressing any disagreement with the uniform consensus
`that laches is available to bar damages claims.
`SCA’s effort to upend that century-old consensus
`and escape the consequences of its unreasonable and
`prejudicial delay should be rejected. SCA’s entire case
`depends on extending Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-
`Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), to patent law. But
`the unique text, history, and purpose of the Patent Act
`all distinguish this case from Petrella. SCA’s attempt
`to gloss over those differences ignores that Petrella
`rests at bottom on a concern for respecting congres-
`sional judgment. Congress’s different judgment in the
`Patent Act thus calls for a different result from the one
`reached under the Copyright Act. Nothing in Petrella
`suggested that Congress could not retain both an outer
`limit for recovery of patent infringement damages, 35
`U.S.C. § 286, as well as equitable defenses, such as
`laches, that may bar damages within that period, id.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`§ 282.1 That is exactly what Congress did here, acting
`against the backdrop of settled judicial practice.
`It is SCA’s desired rule, not that of the court below,
`that would “jettison Congress’ judgment,” Petrella, 134
`S. Ct. at 1967, destabilize the law, and invite abusive
`practices. The court of appeals’ judgment upholding
`the district court’s finding of laches should be affirmed.
`
`STATEMENT
`A. Statutory Background
`1. Before 1870, a patentee seeking both an injunc-
`tion and damages was forced to bring duplicative pro-
`ceedings in equity and at law. A federal court sitting in
`equity could not directly compensate the patentee for
`its past losses; rather, the court was limited to ordering
`an infringer to disgorge any “gains and profits.”
`Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 148 (1888). This
`remedy proved incomplete whenever the patentee’s
`losses exceeded the infringer’s gains. See, e.g., Birdsall
`v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64, 69-70 (1876).
`Congress addressed that shortcoming in the Patent
`Act of 1870, which authorized federal courts sitting in
`equity to award the same damages available at law:
`[T]he court shall have power, upon bill in equi-
`ty … to grant injunctions according to the
`course and principles of courts of equity, … and
`upon a decree being rendered in any such case
`for an infringement, the [patentee] shall be en-
`titled to recover, in addition to the profits to be
`accounted for by the defendant, the damages
`
`
`1 Except as otherwise noted, all citations to title 35 are to the
`2010 edition applicable to this case. Pet. App. 18a n.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`the complainant has sustained thereby, … and
`the court shall have the same powers to in-
`crease the same in its discretion that are given
`by this act to increase the damages found by
`verdicts in actions upon the case ….
`Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, § 55, 16 Stat. 198, 206 (em-
`phasis added) (codified as amended at Rev. Stat. § 4921
`(1874)). Congress did not give courts of law the power
`to issue injunctions; a separate provision of the 1870
`Act instead limited courts of law to awarding “actual
`damages.” Id. § 59, 16 Stat. at 207 (codified as amended
`at Rev. Stat. § 4919). Accordingly, a patentee could ob-
`tain both an injunction and damages in equity, but only
`damages at law.
`Patentees predictably responded by “resort[ing] to
`actions at law with decreasing frequency” after 1870,
`“until finally the jurisdiction of equity over infringe-
`ment suits became for all practical purposes exclusive.”
`Lutz, Evolution of the Claims of U.S. Patents, 20 J.
`Pat. Off. Soc’y 457, 470 (1938). Indeed, “virtually none
`of the patent cases decided in this period” were tried at
`law. Lemley, Why Do Juries Decide If Patents Are
`Valid?, 99 Va. L. Rev. 1673, 1704 (2013); see also
`Heard, The New Rules of Civil Procedure as Affecting
`Patent Litigation, 20 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 895, 895 (1938)
`(“Patent cases are very seldom tried as actions at
`law.”). Actions at law were reserved only for the rare
`cases in which equity jurisdiction could not be in-
`voked—for example, because the patent had already
`expired and thus could no longer be infringed. The
`“dominance of equity” in patent law persisted through
`the merger of law and equity in 1938 and the adoption
`of the Patent Act of 1952. See Lemley, 99 Va. L. Rev.
`at 1704 (“only 2.5% of patent suits were tried to a jury”
`in 1940); Judicial Conference of the United States, Re-
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`port of the Division of Procedural Studies and Statis-
`tics, in Annual Report 67, 134 tbl. C4 (1952) (87 bench
`trials to 4 jury trials in 1952 fiscal year).
`As a result, “[m]uch of the overall body of patent
`jurisprudence was developed within the equity frame-
`work”; patent law is accordingly suffused with “equita-
`ble approaches to judicial reasoning and lawmaking,”
`including “such explicitly equity-based doctrines as pa-
`tent misuse, inequitable conduct, and laches.” Beau-
`champ, The First Patent Litigation Explosion, 125
`Yale L.J. 848, 913 (2016). Equitable principles also in-
`formed the development of other doctrines that contin-
`ue to this day, including the doctrine of equivalents, pa-
`tent exhaustion, the experimental use exception, and
`prosecution laches.
`2. The dominance of equity between 1870 and
`1952 is reflected in the fact that when Congress
`amended the Patent Act to address issues relating to
`damages, it made the amendments exclusively in the
`section of the statute governing damages in equity,
`Rev. Stat. § 4921.2
`First, in 1897, Congress enacted the predecessor to
`the six-year damages period now found in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 286. Congress placed that limitation in Rev. Stat.
`§ 4921 and made it applicable both in equity and at law:
`“in any suit or action … there shall be no recovery of
`profits or damages for any infringement committed
`more than six years before” filing. Act of Mar. 3, 1897,
`
`