May 2, 2018
Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Lillian R. Phares; 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.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), defense, infringement, patentability, summary judgment
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.