直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

It’s Not Too Late: Federal Circuit Reverses Equitable Estoppel and Laches Judgments

May 2, 2018

Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Lillian M. Robinson; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In John Bean Techs. Corp. v. Morris & Assoc., Inc., No. 17-1502 (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing an infringement case based on laches and equitable estoppel.

In 2002, after receiving a patent for poultry chillers, John Bean began notifying Morris’ customers that Morris’ chillers infringed its patent.  In response, Morris sent John Bean a letter stating that the patent was invalid and demanding that John Bean either respond to its invalidity claims or stop contacting its clients.  John Bean did nothing.  Twelve years later, John Bean, through an ex parte reexam, was issued new claims and thereafter sued Morris for infringing those reexamined claims.  Morris raised laches and equitable estoppel as defenses in the infringement suit, and the district court found in Morris’ favor.  The court reasoned that Morris relied on John Bean’s twelve-year silence in continuing to manufacture and sell its own chillers, and that Morris would be prejudiced if the infringement suit were allowed to proceed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the laches judgment because, while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) that laches is not available to a defendant whose infringing activity occurred within six years of the complaint being filed.  As to equitable estoppel, the Court held that the reexamined claims, having issued in 2014, were essentially new, and so equitable estoppel did not apply.  The Court reasoned that because a reexamined claim cannot be broader than its original, because John Bean could not recover damages for infringement prior to the reexam certificate issuance date, and because any delay in bringing suit could not be attributed to the reexam itself, the district court abused its discretion in granting Morris’ equitable estoppel defense.

Tags

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), defense, infringement, patentability, summary judgment

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP