SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
| Decision Date | 18 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–1564.,2013–1564. |
| Citation | 807 F.3d 1311 |
| Parties | SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLAG SCA Personal Care, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants v. FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC, First Quality Hygienic, Inc., First Quality Products, Inc. and First Quality Retail Services, LLC, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Martin J. Black, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Terilynn A. Evans, Kevin Mark Flannery, Sharon K. Gagliardi.
Kenneth George, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, New York, N.Y., argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Mark Berkowitz, Sandra Adele Hudak, Charles R. Macedo.
J. Derek Vandenburgh, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae The Toro Company. Also represented by Joseph W. Winkels.
Richard Delucia, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae Medinol Ltd. Also represented by Mark Alexander Chapman, Elizabeth Gardner, Aloysius Antony Pfeffer, Joseph Matthew Purcell, Jr., Eric Schreiber ; Richard H. Pildes, New York, N.Y.
Gregory A. Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association. Also represented by Caroline Edsall, Israel Sasha Mayergoyz; Philip Staton Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ; Kevin H. Rhodes, 3M Innovative Properties Company, St. Paul, MN; Herbert Clare Wamsley, Jr., Intellectual Property Owners Association, Washington, DC.
Andrew John Dhuey, Berkeley, CA, for amicus curiae Morris Reese.
Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE, for amicus curiae ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH.
Ariel Lavinbuk, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Stephanos Bibas, Samuel L. Bray, John F. Duffy. Also represented by Michael E. Kenneally.
Nancy Mertzel, Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Stern LLP, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association. Also represented by DEnise Whelton Defranco, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Boston, MA.
Steven C. Sereboff, SoCal IP Law Group LLP, Westlake Village, CA, for amicus curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association. Also represented by Mark Andrew Goldstein, Meenakshi Kala Sarvaiya.
Philip J. Warrick, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, for amici curiae Garmin International, Inc., Limelight Networks, Inc., LinkedIn Corporation, Mentor Graphics Corporation, Newegg Inc., SAP America, Inc., SAS Institute Inc., Symmetry LLC, Xilinx, Inc. Also represented by John D. Vandenberg.
Mitchell M. Wong, Ashmasons LLP, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae Ashmasons LLP.
John Thorne, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Dell Inc., CTIA The Wireless Association, Hewlett–Packard Company, Intel Corporation, Xerox Corporation. Also represented by Aaron M. Panner, Gregory G. Rapawy.
Suzanne Michel, Google Inc., Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Google Inc.
Derek Shaffer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
Eugene M. Gelernter, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for amici curiae Johnson & Johnson, Cordis Corporation. Also represented by Gregory Diskant, Scott B. Howard.
Vera Ranieri, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge.
Kevin J. Culligan, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae Askeladden, L.L.C. Also represented by John P. Hanish ; Brian Timothy Burgess, William M. Jay, Washington, DC.
Douglas A. Miro, Ostrolenk Faber LLP, New York, N.Y., for amicus curiae Universal Remote Control, Inc. Also represented by Alan Federbush.
Michael Songer, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae AT & T Mobility II LLC. Also represented by Vincent John Galluzzo.
Greer N. Shaw, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae T–Mobile USA, Inc. Also represented by Trisha Farmer, Phoenix, AZ.
Dominic P. Zanfardino, Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Cook Medical LLC. Also represented by Cynthia A. Homan, Andrew S. McElligott.
Brett L. Foster, Holland & Hart LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, for amicus curiae Hydro Engineering, Inc. Also represented by Dawn M. David, Mark A. Miller.
Mark Christopher Fleming, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for amicus curiae Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. Also represented by Robert J. Gunther, Jr., Omar Khan, New York, N.Y.
Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Briggs & Stratton Corp., Harley–Davidson Motor Company, Inc., Jockey International, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O'MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.*
Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge PROST in which Circuit Judges NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, O'MALLEY, and REYNA join. Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge HUGHES in which Circuit Judges MOORE, WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN join.
We convene en banc to resolve whether, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Petrella v. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1962, 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014), laches remains a defense to legal relief in a patent infringement suit. We conclude that Congress codified a laches defense in 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(1) that may bar legal remedies. Accordingly, we have no judicial authority to question the law's propriety. Whether Congress considered the quandary in Petrella is irrelevant—in the 1952 Patent Act, Congress settled that laches and a time limitation on the recovery of damages can coexist in patent law. We must respect that statutory law.
Nevertheless, we must adjust the laches defense in one respect to harmonize it with Petrella and other Supreme Court precedent. We emphasize that equitable principles apply whenever an accused infringer seeks to use laches to bar ongoing relief. Specifically, as to injunctions, considerations of laches fit naturally within the eBay framework. In contrast, Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514, 9 S.Ct. 143, 32 L.Ed. 526 (1888), and Petrella counsel that laches will only foreclose an ongoing royalty in extraordinary circumstances.
The present dispute arose out of litigation concerning adult incontinence products. SCA alleges that First Quality, a competitor in the adult incontinence products market, infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,375,646 ('646 patent). SCA first contended that First Quality's Prevail® All NitesTM product infringes the '646 patent in a letter sent to First Quality on October 31, 2003. The correspondence explained:
First Quality responded on November 21, 2003 and claimed the patent was invalid:
As you suggested, we studied [the '646 tent].... In addition, we made a cursory review of prior patents and located U.S. Patent No. 5,415,649, ("the '649 Patent"), which was filed in the United States on October 29, 1991 and is therefore prior to your client's '646 Patent. A review of Figs. 3 and 4 of the prior '649 Patent reveals the same diaper construction claimed by the '646 Patent. Thus, the prior '649 Patent invalidates your client's '646 Patent. As you know, an invalid patent cannot be infringed.
J.A. 547. SCA and First Quality ceased communications regarding the '646 patent after First Quality's response. However, on July 7, 2004, SCA requested reexamination of the '646 patent in light of the '649 patent. SCA did not notify First Quality of the reexamination because, in SCA's view, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") reexaminations are public and First Quality could follow the proceedings itself. Yet, from First Quality's point of view, SCA dropped its infringement allegations against First Quality after First Quality argued the patent was invalid in the November 21st letter.
The PTO instituted reexamination on the '646 patent and, on March 27, 2007, confirmed the patentability of all twenty-eight original claims and issued several other claims SCA added during reexamination. Meanwhile, First Quality invested heavily in its protective underwear business. In 2006, First Quality expanded its line of adult incontinence products. In 2008, First Quality acquired Tyco Healthcare Retail Group LP, which had several lines of competing products, and in 2009 First Quality spent another $10 million to purchase three more lines of protective underwear products. SCA was aware of First Quality's activities, but never mentioned the '646 patent to First Quality during this time.
On August 2, 2010—over three years after reexamination concluded—SCA filed a complaint alleging that First Quality infringes the '646 patent. Service of the complaint was the first time in nearly seven years that SCA had communicated with First Quality regarding the '646 patent. The district court proceeded with discovery and issued a claim construction order. First Quality then moved for partial summary judgment of noninfringement and for summary judgment of laches and equitable estoppel. The district court granted First Quality's motion as to laches and equitable estoppel and dismissed the noninfringement motion as moot.
SCA appealed, and on September 17, 2014, a panel of this court affirmed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...e.g. , Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prod., Inc. , 816 F.3d 721, 726 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; SCA Hygiene Prod. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC , 807 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We also take cases en banc to review whether a panel properly interpreted a statute, such as in a......
-
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equal.
...Chaides Constr. Co. (Fed. Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1020, 1028, overruled on other grounds by SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC (Fed.Cir.2015) 807 F.3d 1311, 2015 WL 5474261 ). The Board has not adduced any evidence that these defenses might be at issue in this case;......
-
ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc.
...pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, laches is available as a defense to patent infringement. SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC , 807 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2015) (en banc), petition for cert. filed , No. 15-927 (Jan. 19, 2016). To succeed in a defense of laches, an ......
-
Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
...concluded that Congress, in enacting the Patent Act, had "codified a laches defense" that "barred recovery of legal remedies." 807 F.3d 1311, 1323–1329 (2015). Judge Hughes, joined by four other judges, dissented.2 Id., at 1337–1342(opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). We gra......
-
Case Comments
...absent extraordinary circumstances, laches does not preclude an ongoing royalty." Sca Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods., 807 F.3d 1311, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).PATENTS - MALPRACTICE A reasonable attorney could have determined that a patented braking system w......
-
THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS FOR FINAL INJUNCTIONS IN PATENT CASES C.1789 AND SOME MODERN IMPLICATIONS.
...same mistake in a copyright case). (158.) See supra note 154; see also SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 807 F.3d 1311, 1331-33 (Fed. Cir. (159.) See also Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165-66 (2010) (stating that a final injunction should ......
-
Chapter §19.03 Absence of Liability for Infringement
...Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017).[90] See SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 807 F.3d 1311, 1331 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015) (en banc) (opinion section titled "Laches' Application to Ongoing Relief"). Importantly, the Supreme Court......
-
CERTIORARI, UNIVERSALITY, AND A PATENT PUZZLE.
...1972 (2014) (emphasis added). (130.) Id. at 1967. (131.) Id. (132.) SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 807 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), vacated in part, 137 S. Ct. 954. (133.) Id. at 1333. (134.) Id. at 1321-23 (citing 35 U.S.C. [section] 282(b)(1) (20......