throbber
No. 15-927
`
`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,
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket