What is the concept of laches related to patent

infringement?

Gerald Barnett, IP strategist

Answered Jan 6, 2017

Laches has two basic elements—that someone has a claim but does not state it in a
reasonable time, and that someone affected by the claim is disadvantaged by the delay. If
we allow laches as a defense, we limit the timing of claims—if someone has a claim, then
they state it rather than sit back and wait to catch another at a more vulnerable point. That
makes some sense, on its own.

But think of it another way: if someone deliberately trespasses on our rights, should they
have the benefit of a “laches” defense? Shouldn’t the knowing trespasser have an obligation
to stop as soon as they realize what they are doing? Shouldn’t a company take the time to
examine the patent literature before introducing a product, to see what claims might be
there? That, too, sounds reasonable.

But there are millions of patents, many with multiple claims—meaning that there are tens of
millions of potential claims floating around. Navigating all those claims—and every day the
paperboy brings thousands more—can be daunting. Thus, it makes sense to “call your own
fouls”—if you have a right, and you intend to enforce it, then you need to act timely when
you find a problem. Otherwise, it’s whining.

I will be a bit cynical. If you make your money from there being more and more patents,
then you may have a hard time with laches. If patents are your business, the stronger the
apparent rights of the patent owner and the less the behavior of the patent owner has
anything to do with exploiting those rights, the more patents people will acquire and the
more opportunities they will have to exploit their rights, regardless of whether they ever use
the inventions covered by those patents and regardless of how long they wait to trip up
others whose activities and products happen to cross any of those millions of free-floating,
unworked claims. From this perspective, every unworked patent claim is a happy little land
mine available for speculative investment in the hope that someone else will trip over it to
their misfortune and to the astute—and legally proper—speculator’s profit.

Consider, then, a different sense of laches related to patent infringement and reflected in
the history of patents but not in U.S. patent law. One’s unreasonable delay in making, using,
and selling product based on a patented invention denies the public of access to the
benefits of the invention. Perhaps to enforce a patent right against another, a patent owner
should have to demonstrate that the invention is being practiced without unreasonable
delay. Make patent law like trademark law—require patent owners to submit an affidavit of
use before they can file an infringement claim or pay a patent maintenance fee. The public,
then, would have a laches defense for invention nonuse against a patent owner who
unreasonably delays the practice of a patented invention. The unreasonable delay is itself
the harm to the public.

Expect lawyerish outrage with regard to such a proposal (see cynical paragraph above), but
if a patent system is a social scheme to promote the “progress of the useful arts,” then the
progress bit should matter. As it is, the U.S. patent system without laches has created
millions of unworked inventions with claims that are primarily useful to support making
mischief against those who are making progress. What would happen if all patent claims
that had not been worked in the past five years were simply canceled? Would society fall
apart? Would we feel millions of voices cry out? Would researchers stop looking for cures
for diseases? Would innovation grind to a halt? Or would the useful arts progress at a more
rapid pace?

Thinking about laches in patent enforcement might then give rise to a basic question. Who
is more important to progress of the useful arts: the living, or those betting the living will
eventually infringe, given patents enough and time?

Daniel Douglas, Attorney and Patent Agent, but not YOUR attorney or patent agent.
Answered Jan 6, 2017 · Author has 654 answers and 549.1k answer views

Laches is an idea from the old courts of equity (that is, courts that decide what to do based
on what is fair, rather than based on what a statute states should be done). The idea is that
if you sit on your rights and do not act when you know someone has wronged you, you lose
the right to object later. In the U.S., once you find out that someone is infringing your
patent, you must sue them within 6 years, or else you will be forced to show a good
justification for why you waited, and if you can’t, your suit can be dismissed.

A Brief History of Laches in

Patent Law
 By Audrey Ogurchak
June 7, 2016

3
Print Article

The equitable doctrine of laches has existed in the United States court system
since the founding of this country, originating from the English Courts of
Equity. Laches has been applied to cases involving patent infringement and
has been allowed as a defense by the court in instances at which legal and
equitable relief was granted. On May 2, 2016, the Supreme Court granted a
petition for certiorari for SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products.
While this case could eliminate the defense of laches in patent infringement, it
is important to understand where this doctrine came from and how it has been
applied in patent law.

The doctrine of laches has existed in the U.S. Court System since the very
beginning. This defense bars claims by those whose unreasonable delay in
bringing a claim results in prejudice against the defendant. As the doctrine
addresses underlying fairness, it acts primarily as an equitable defense and
appears to be a precursor to statutory limitations. In order to invoke the laches
defense, a defendant must show both an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff
and prejudice to the defendant. Unreasonable delay occurs when a plaintiff,
with actual or constructive knowledge of the facts, fails to assert its rights by
bringing suit at the time of knowledge. Prejudice is found when, over time, a
change in circumstances inequitably disadvantages or burdens the defendant.

Laches had been applied regularly by the courts when the facts had shown
that the defense was appropriate. However, before 1952, Congress had
remained relatively silent about this judicially created doctrine.
The 1895 Supreme Court case, Campbell v. City of Haverhill, offered some
insight onto why equitable defenses have been recognized in patent litigation.
At the time Campbell was decided, 35 USC §286 had not been included in the
patent statute and there was no applicable federal restriction on delays in
patent litigation, forcing an accused infringer to assert a six-year state tort
statute of limitations to any infringement case. The patentee
in Campbell argued that this time constraint was not applicable, to which the
Supreme Court responded,

“[u]nless…[the state statute of limitations applies], we have the anomaly of a

distinct class of actions subject to no limitation whatever; a class of privileged
plaintiffs who … are outside the pale of the law, and subject to no limitation of
time in which they may institute their actions. The result is that users of
patented articles, perhaps innocent of any wrong intention, may be fretted by
actions brought against them after all their witnesses are dead, and perhaps
after all memory of the transaction is lost to them. This cannot have been
within the contemplation of the legislative power.”

Two years after this case was decided, Congress enacted 29 Stat. 694,
allowing for a six-year window for past damages in patent suits, which is now
known as §286 today. In 1915, Congress enacted 38 Stat. 956, authorizing
equitable defenses to be interposed in actions at law. This section was later
deleted in 1937 as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 eliminated the
procedural distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity. The courts
continued to apply this doctrine after this elimination.

In the 1952 Patent Act, Congress intended to codify the existing patent laws.
Legislative history has indicated that Congress intended to preserve the
defense of laches and, as a result, the defense survived into patent cases
heard today. Thirty-five U.S.C. §282 lists the defenses that may be raised in a
patent infringement suit, including “non-infringement, absence of liability for
infringement or unenforceability.”
The question of whether or not laches is a valid defense in patent infringement
arose in the 1992 Supreme Court case, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. F.L Chaides
Constr. Co. There, Aukerman waited nine years before filing a suit for patent
infringement against Chaides for Aukerman’s method and device for forming
concrete barriers separating highway surfaces of different elevations.
Aukerman argued that the defense of laches was inapplicable in patent
infringement suits, as it conflicts with the plain text of §286 and that where an
express statute of limitations applies against a claim, laches couldn’t apply
within the limitation period. The court held this argument to be erroneous,
finding that, in other areas of jurisdiction, laches is routinely applied within the
prescribed statute of limitations period for bringing a claim. The court further
found that nothing in §286 suggests that Congress intended to eliminate the
long recognized defense of laches or to take away a district court’s equitable
powers in connection with patent cases. Thus, the courts continued to apply
laches in patent infringement cases.

The validity of laches in patent cases was not seriously dealt with again by the
Supreme Court until the copyright case of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,
Inc. in 2014. Petrella sued Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) eighteen years after
the alleged copyright infringement of the screen play for “Raging Bull.” The
Supreme Court refused to allow MGM to assert the laches defense, holding
that “laches is a defense developed by courts of equity; its principle
application was, and remains, to claims of an equitable cast for which the
Legislature has provided no fixed time limitation.” Although this case related to
copyright infringement, the Supreme Court noted in a footnote of the opinion
that it “[has] not had occasion to review the Federal Circuit’s position” of
whether laches can bar damages incurred prior to the commencement of suit.

This is the precise issue presented to the Supreme Court in SCA v. First
Quality. Over the next year, or so, we are likely to learn what the Court meant
in its comment buried in the footnote of Petrella. Even if the Supreme Court
follows its same reasoning as in Petrella, it is likely that laches will remain in
cases involving equitable remedies, however, it would no longer be applicable
 in cases involving legal remedies. Either way, it is important for interested
parties to pay attention this case and the possible elimination of the doctrine
as a defense.

Audrey Ogurchak is a 3L at Syracuse University College of Law,

pursuing a JD/MS in Computer Science. Audrey also received a
B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Ohio University. She is
currently focused in patent law and technology transactions.
Audrey has spent a portion of her legal education assisting start
up companies navigate through intellectual property, regulatory
and market issues. She is currently the Technology Editor for
Syracuse University's Journal of Science and Technology Law
and the President of Syracuse's Intellectual Property Law
Society.

Tags:A.C. Aukerman v. R.L. Chaides Constr, laches, laches

doctrine, patent, Patent Litigation, patents, SCA Hygiene Products
Aktiebolag, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products
LLC

Posted In:IP News, IPWatchdog Articles

1. aul F. Morgan June 8, 2016 10:37 am

This article says Aukerman was a Sup. Ct. case. It was a Fed. Cir. en banc decision,
reversing a panel decision.
Also it is important to note that the six year statutory limit on back damages recovery for
patent infringement is NOT a “statute of limitations.” Their is no time limit on bringing
patent infringement suits no matter how long infringement was known by the patent
owner until the patent [with extensions] expires AND that six years expires – without
laches, suit could be brought 26 years or more from the application filing date.

2. Ned Heller June 9, 2016 4:37 pm

 Paul, very good point there about the fact that there is no real statute of limitations in
patent law. That may be a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s ultimate handling of
the case.

3. Steve Szczepanski September 8, 2016 5:54 pm

Section 286 is a statute of limitations. It cuts off the recovery of damages for all
infringement that had occurred more than 6 years prior to the filing date of the lawsuit.
Each act of infringement gives rise to a separate claim for infringement.
A court may not use equitable defense of laches to override a statute.

Estate and Elder Law

Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss
26 Jan 2012

 doctrine of laches
 laches

Related Publications
LexisNexis CLE On-Demand
®

LexisNexis CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law
®

Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of
topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual
courses and subscriptions available.
Doctrine of Laches means you are "Out of Time"
In a continuation of our "rosetta stone" of "legalese" to English, Stacey
C. Maiden, Esq. of our Estate Planning and Elder Law Department, talks
about a recent case that gives life to the dusty doctrine of "laches".
Aren't latches what you use to close a door ? Not if you are a lawyer - to
us "laches" means "too bad, you are out of time", as in, "that door is
now locked".

Defendants often raise the "doctrine of laches" as an affirmative defense in

answers, but it is seldom applied by the Court. What exactly is laches? The
doctrine of laches is based on the maxim that "equity aids the vigilant and not
those who slumber on their rights." (Black's Law Dictionary). The outcome is
that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in
asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party. Elements of
laches include knowledge of a claim, unreasonable delay, neglect, which
taken together hurt the opponent.

A New Jersey Court recently put the doctrine of laches to use in dismissing
claims made by a surviving spouse in an estate matter. In the unpublished
case Buie v. Estate of Buie, Chancery Div., Probate Part (Essex Cty.)
(Koprowski, J.S.C.), the decedent died testate, leaving his property in Newark
to be divided among his six children equally. One week after his death, the
plaintiff, his wife, who received non-probate assets of $95,000, left the house
in question and returned to South Carolina with co-plaintiff, her son with the
decedent.

14 years later [and yes, that is a long time later], the plaintiff/surviving spouse
filed an action demanding her intestate share under N.J.S.A. 3B:5-3 as an
omitted spouse under 3B:5-15 or an elective share of her husband's estate
under 3B:8-1. The court held that the omitted spouse claim was barred by
the doctrine of laches since there has been a substantial delay in bringing the
action, the plaintiff was the cause of the delay, and defendants have been
prejudiced as a result of the delay.
The court also held that plaintiff's claim under the Elective Share statute was
time-barred and that no good cause existed to extend the time to file. Under
New Jersey statute, plaintiffs must file claims for elective share within 6
months of the appointment of a personal representative. (N.J.S.A. §3B:8-12):

What is the take-away from this? If you have a legal claim, you have to act on
it in a timely manner. While some claims may have to be brought in a specific
period because of a statue-of-limitations (like the Elective Share in the
example above), all claims must be made in a reasonable time frame from
when you knew about the claim. It is very difficult to have to tell a client while
they may have the best case in the world, they aren't able to get relief
because they didn't act quickly enough. Luckily, the Doctrine of Laches is
entirely avoidable if you get legal advise from an attorney at the time that you
have a legal question.

Deirdre R. Wheatley-Liss is a shareholder of the Law Firm of Fein, Such,

Kahn & Shepard, P.C., with offices in Parsippany and Toms River, New
Jersey. She concentrates her practice in the areas of Elder Law, Estate
Planning and Administration, Business Planning and Tax Law. Deirdre's
individual clients range from their 20's to their 80's and beyond, while her
business clients range from start-ups with exciting new ideas to 100+ year old
business ventures. Clients seek Deirdre's advice and assistance with a variety
of planning issues relating to identifying and meeting their personal, family
and business goals, whether in a planning or crises situation.

....

Laches (equity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on 

the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) 

This article needs attention from an expert in law. The specific problem is: a dearth 
 of secondary sources exists, instead, reliance on WP:OR and primary case citations, 
and non‐standard citing of that case law is inconsistent. (January 2016) 

This article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2016) 
 

Equitable doctrines  

Doctrines 

 Equitable conversion 
 Estoppel 
 Hotchpot 
 Knowing receipt 
 Laches 
 Marshalling 
 Unconscionability 
 Undue influence 
 Subrogation 

Defences 

 Bona fide purchaser 
 Clean hands 

Equitable remedies  

 Account of profits 
 Constructive trust 
 Declaratory relief 
 Injunction 
 Rectification 
 Rescission 
 Specific performance 
  Tracing 

Related 

 Court of Chancery 
 Equitable interest 
 History of equity 
 Maxims of equity 
 Trust law 

 v
 t
 e

Laches (/ˈlætʃɪz/ "latches", /ˈleɪtʃɪz/}; Law French: remissness, dilatoriness, from Old
French laschesse) refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving
forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity; hence, it is
an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing [defending] party. When
asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.
The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as
a result of this delay, circumstances have changed, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no
longer available, etc., such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff's claim. Laches is
associated with the maxim of equity, "Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those
who sleep on their rights]." Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can
result in a claim being barred by laches.

Contents

 1Origin, definition, overview

 2Components
o 2.1Delay
o 2.2Unreasonableness
o 2.3Prejudice
 3Procedure
 4Compared to statute of limitations
 5Examples
 6See also
 7Notes
 8External links

Origin, definition, overview[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this 
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be 
challenged and removed. 
 Find sources: "Laches" equity – news ∙ newspapers ∙ books ∙ scholar ∙ JSTOR (January 2016) (Learn 
how and when to remove this template message) 

Laches is a legal term derived from the Old French laschesse, meaning "remissness" or
"dilatoriness," and is viewed as the opposite of "vigilance."[1][2][3] The United States Supreme Court
case Costello v. United States 365 US 265, 282 (1961) is often cited for a definition of
laches.[4][clarification needed][clarification needed] Invoking laches is a reference to a lack of diligence and activity in
making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard
to equity, and so is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim, in a way that prejudices the
[opposing] party".[1] When asserted in litigation, it is an equitable defense, that is, a defense to a
claim for an equitable remedy.[5] The essential element of laches is an unreasonable delay by the
plaintiff in bringing the claim; because laches is an equitable defense, it is ordinarily applied only to
claims for equitable relief (such as injunctions), and not to claims for legal relief (such as
damages).[5] The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights",
and that, as a result of this delay, witnesses and/or evidence may have been lost or no longer
available, and circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff's
original claim;[citation needed] hence, laches is associated with the maxim of equity: Vigilantibus non
dormientibus æquitas subvenit ("Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who
sleep on their rights]").[6] Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result
in a claim being barred by laches. Sometimes courts will also require that the party invoking the
doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay, but that requirement is more typical of the
related (but more stringent) defense and equally cause of action of estoppel.[citation needed]

Components[edit]
This section relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be 
found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to 
additional sources. (January 2016) 

This section needs additional citations to secondary or tertiary sources such as 

review articles, monographs, or textbooks. Please add such references to provide 
context and establish the relevance of any primary research articles cited. 
Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 
2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) 

A claim of laches requires the following components:(1) a delay in bringing the action, (2) a delay
that is unreasonable and (3) that prejudices the defendant.[citation needed][7][non-primary source needed]
Delay[edit]
The period of delay begins when the plaintiff knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the
cause of action existed; the period of delay ends only when the legal action is formally
filed.[8] Informing or warning the defendant of the cause of action (for example by sending a cease-
and-desist letter or merely threatening a lawsuit) does not, by itself, end the period of delay.[7][non-primary
source needed]

Unreasonableness[edit]
To invoke laches the delay by the opposing party in initiating the lawsuit must be unreasonable.
The courts have recognized the following causes of delay as reasonable:[citation needed]
 the exhaustion of remedies through the administrative process
 the evaluation and preparation of a complicated claim
 to determine whether the scope of proposed infringement will justify the cost of litigation[7][non-
primary source needed]

By contrast, it is not reasonable to delay a lawsuit to "capitalize on the value of the infringer's labor".
In Danjaq v. Sony, the Ninth Circuit decided that a screenwriter who waited for a film studio to
publicize and distribute a film based on a script he allegedly owned had delayed his lawsuit
unreasonably.[7][non-primary source needed]
Prejudice[edit]
Unreasonable delay must prejudice the defendant. Examples of such prejudice include:[citation needed]

 evidence favorable to the defendant becoming lost or degraded

 witnesses favorable to the defendant dying or losing their memories
 the defendant making economic decisions (e.g. investing in a movie or a manufacturing
process) that it would not have done, had the lawsuit been filed earlier.[7]
Unreasonable delay may also prejudice the rights of third-parties who were unknown in the case,
earlier but whose rights got created in the intervening period of the delay (e.g.: the defendant inducts
new persons on a disputed property by sale, or by lease)

Procedure[edit]
This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this 
section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to 
remove this template message) 

A defense lawyer raising the defense of laches against a motion for injunctive relief (a form of
equitable relief) might argue that the plaintiff comes "waltzing in at the eleventh hour" when it is now
too late to grant the relief sought, at least not without causing great harm that the plaintiff could have
avoided. In certain types of cases (for example, cases involving time-sensitive matters, such as
elections), a delay of even a few days is likely to be met with a defense of laches, even where the
applicable statute of limitations might allow the type of action to be commenced within a much longer
time period. In courts in the United States, laches has often been applied even where a statute of
limitations exists, although there is a division of authority on this point.[5]
If a court does accept the laches defense, it can decide either to deny the request for equitable relief
or to narrow the equitable relief that it would otherwise give. Even if the court denies equitable relief
to a plaintiff because of laches, the plaintiff may still have a claim for legal relief if the statute of
limitations has not run out.
Under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, laches is an affirmative defense, which
means that the burden of asserting laches is on the party responding to the claim to which it applies.
"When the defense of laches is clear on the face of the complaint, and where it is clear that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts to avoid the insuperable bar, a court may consider the defense on a
motion to dismiss."[9][non-primary source needed] [10][non-primary source needed]
The laches defense does not apply if the claimant was a minor during the time that the claim was not
brought, so a party can bring a claim against an historical injustice when they reach their
majority.[11][non-primary source needed]
Compared to statute of limitations[edit]
The defense of laches resembles a statute of limitations since both are concerned with ensuring that
plaintiffs bring their claims in a timely fashion.
However, a statute of limitations is concerned only with the time that has passed. Laches is
concerned with the reasonableness of the delay in a particular situation and so is more case-specific
and more focused on the equitable conduct of the plaintiff. Those considerations are not unique to
the laches defense because they are characteristic of equitable reasoning and equitable
remedies.[5] Whereas, limitation is a statutory remedy.
In the US, the proper disposal of claims in light of those two areas of law has required attention
through to the Supreme Court. In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014), the US Supreme
Court rebuffed a defendant's claim that laches barred a copyright infringement suit because
Congress had established a detailed statutory scheme, including a statute of limitations.[12] [13][non-primary
source needed]

Examples[edit]
This section needs expansion with: good, textbook‐type examples drawn from 
secondary sources, giving those sources. You can help by adding to it. (January 2016) 

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this 

by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (January 2016) (Learn how and when to remove 
this template message) 

In the Virginia Republican primary for the 2012 US presidential election, several candidates did not
appear on the ballot because they failed to obtain sufficient petition signatures in time; four of the
unsuccessful candidates—Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum—sued,
claiming that restrictions on the persons allowed to gather signatures were unconstitutional.[14] Their
claim was dismissed by the district court on the grounds of laches, because, in the words of the
appellate court:
…plaintiffs could have brought their constitutional challenge to Virginia’s residency requirement for
petition circulators as soon they were able to circulate petitions in the summer of 2011, but instead
chose to wait until after the December 22, 2011 deadline before seeking relief. The district court
concluded this delay 'displayed an unreasonable and inexcusable lack of diligence' on plaintiffs’ part
that 'has significantly harmed the defendants.' Specifically, it determined that the delayed nature of
this suit had already transformed the Board's orderly schedule for printing and mailing absentee
ballots 'into a chaotic attempt to get absentee ballots out on time.' The district court consequently
held that laches barred their request for relief.[15]
The appeals court upheld the dismissal on grounds of laches, but it added that the challenge would
likely have succeeded if it had been brought in a timely fashion.[15]
In Grand Haven, Michigan, the Northwest Ottawa Community Health System sued Grand Haven
Township and Health Pointe, which was in the process of building a competing medical facility in the
township, arguing that the township ignored its own zoning ordinance in approving the project. On
March 24, 2017, as part of the ruling dismissing the lawsuit, Circuit Court Judge Jon A. Van Allsburg
noted that the Northwest Ottawa Community Health System delayed more than eight months from
the date the project was approved before filing the lawsuit and that during that time, plaintiff Health
Pointe had purchased construction materials. Therefore, the doctrine of laches invalidated a lawsuit
that was filed so long after the fact.[16]
See also[edit]
 Adverse possession
 Estoppel by acquiescence
 Equitable tolling
 Submarine patent

Notes[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Garner, Bryan A., ed. (2009). "Laches [Definition of 'laches' by
Black's]". Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). ISBN 0314199497. Retrieved 5 January 2016.
2. ^ "Laches [Definition of 'laches' by OED]". Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press. September 2005. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
3. ^ "Laches [Definition of 'laches' by Merriam-Webster]". merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 5
January 2016.
4. ^ Fort, Kathryn E. (2009). "The New Laches: Creating Title Where None Existed". George
Mason Law Review. 16: 357.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bray, Samuel (2014). "A Little Bit of Laches Goes a Long Way: Notes on
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc" (PDF). Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc. 67: 1–18.
6. ^ Ibrahim, Ashraf Ray (April 1997). "The Doctrine of Laches in International Law". Virginia
Law Review. 83 (3): 647–692. JSTOR 1073651.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e "Danjaq LLC MGM UA v. SONY Corporation". Findlaw. Retrieved 5
January 2016.[non-primary source needed]
8. ^ http://www.modeljuryinstructions.com/tag/laches/
9. ^ Solow v. Nine West Group, 2001 WL 736794, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001).[non-primary source needed]
10. ^ Simons v. United States, 452 F.2d 1110, 1116 (2d Cir. 1971) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal based, in part, on laches where papers "reveal no reason for the inordinate and prejudicial
delay").[non-primary source needed]
11. ^ "USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud,
Philip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh v. Pro-Football, Inc., Cancellation, Proceeding No.
92046185". uspto.gov. June 18, 2014. Retrieved 5 January2016.[non-primary source needed]
12. ^ Fisher, Daniel (2014). "Supreme Court Upholds 'Raging Bull' Suit vs.
MGM" (online). Forbes (May 19, 2014). Retrieved 5 January2016.
13. ^ "Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc". Legal Information Institute (LII). Retrieved 5
January 2016.[non-primary source needed]
14. ^ Buchanan, Scott E.; Kapeluck, Branwell D. (2014-03-01). Second Verse, Same as the First:
The 2012 Presidential Election in the South. University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 9781610755337.
15. ^ Jump up to:a b "United State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, The Honorable Rick
Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant-Movant, The Honorable Newt Gingrich, The Honorable Jon Huntsman, Jr.,
and the Honorable Rick Santorum, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. Charles Judd, Kimberly Bowers, and Don
Palmer, members of the Virginia Board of Elections, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees-
Respondents, Proceeding No. 12-1067" (PDF). ca4.uscourts.gov. January 17, 2012. Retrieved 5
January2016.[non-primary source needed]
16. ^ Kloosterman, Stephen (March 29, 2017). "Judge dismisses hospital lawsuit against
township, Spectrum project". MLive. MLive Media Group. Retrieved 30 March 2017.

External links[edit]
 Nair, Manisha Singh (2006) "Laches and Acquiescence" in Indian intellectual property law