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 | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms

