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

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

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.

The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.