The Six-Year Clock for the Presumption of Laches Keeps Ticking Past the Issuance of a Reexamination Certificate
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.18.08
In Serdarevic v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (No. 08-1075, July 16, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms a summary judgment that a claim of inventorship is barred by laches where the plaintiff filed suit less than six years after the issuance of a reexamination certificate but more than six years from the original grant of the patent.
According to the Federal Circuit, the issuance of a reexamination certificate does not automatically reset the six-year clock for the presumption of laches. The mere possibility that the claims of a patent may be amended to affect an inventorship claim does not excuse a delay in bringing suit. Because the plaintiff asserted her claim nearly eight years after learning of the issuance of the six patents in suit, even though one had undergone reexamination, the Court concludes that the district court properly applied the presumption of laches.
The Federal Circuit agrees that, in the absence of evidence that the delay was reasonable or excusable or that the defendants did not suffer material prejudice due to the delay, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of laches. Unfamiliarity with the U.S. patent system, an inability to obtain willing legal counsel, and efforts to license one's inventorship rights do not suffice to rebut the presumption that the delay was unreasonable or inexcusable. As to material prejudice, although the plaintiff was willing to forego reliance on three deceased witnesses who had knowledge of the inventorship claim, such willingness did not reverse the prejudice suffered by the defendants in their ability to present a full and fair defense on the merits.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26

