Skip to main content

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LACHES IN IP INFRINGEMENT

A six-year "lookback period" to limit is imposed under 35 USC §286 on a patent infringement action.

35 USC §286 states(2): "Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infri

Additional resources provided by the author

(1) Dr. Rao Vepachedu is the Managing Director at Cardinal Risk Management and registered patent attorney with extensive experience in the management of intellectual property and extensive experience in research and teaching. He currently works for Cardinal Intellectual Property (CIP), Cardinal Risk Management (CRM), and Cardinal Law Group (CLG). In addition, he is the president of Vepachedu Educational Foundation Inc. (www.vepachedu.org), a 501(c) (3) educational foundation. For more information visit: www.linkedin.com/in/vepachedu; https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/60201-il-sreenivasarao-vepachedu-764535.html, and http://www.crm-ip.com/vepachedu.html. Contact: [email protected] or [email protected]: www.linkedin.com/in/vepachedu and http://www.crm-ip.com/vepachedu.html;

https://www.avvo.com/profile/dashboard.
(2)Time limitation on damages: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title35/html/USCODE-2011-title35-partIII-chap29-sec286.htm
(3) The Admiralty Doctrine of Laches, Louisiana Law Review, Volume 53, Number 2, November 1992, http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5422&context=lalrev; The Doctrine of Laches in International Law, Virginia Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 647-692 (April 1997); http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073651
(4) Chart: Statutes of Limitations in All 50 States: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.html
(5)Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962, at 1967, 1969, 1974, 1978-79 (2014); Bray, A Little Bit of Laches Goes a Long Way, Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc (forthcoming January 2014), http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/alittlebitoflaches.pdf
(6) SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/13-1564.Opinion.9-16-2015.1.PDF
(7)A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, at 1032, 1036, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc)
(8) A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore.
“Patent troll” is a person or entity that owns a patent but does not produce the patented product or practice the patented method. A patent troll obtains the patents being sold at auctions by bankrupt companies attempting to liquidate their assets, or by doing just enough research to prove they had the idea first. They can then launch lawsuits against infringing companies, or simply hold the patent without planning to practise the idea in an attempt to keep other companies productivity at a standstill. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp#ixzz3nMCsUNB6; http://www.forbes.com/sites/econostats/2015/05/29/who-are-patent-trolls-and-what-will-h-r-9-do-about-them/

Rate this guide


Recommended articles about Lawsuits and disputes

Can’t find what you’re looking for?


Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer